Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till this Evening, at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Aberdeen Corporation," presented by Mr. MUNRO; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Glamorgan (Pontypridd Division), in the room of THOMAS ARTHUR LEWIS, Esquire, one of the Commissioners for executing the Office of Treasurer of the Exchequer of Great Britain and Lord High Treasurer of Ireland.—[Mr. McCurdy.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

EX-DRIVER H. G. WETHER.

Mr. C. WHITE: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will make inquiries into the case of ex-driver Harold G. Wether, No. T/3,025,671, of Slaithwaite, late of Matlock, to whom a considerable
amount is due in respect of pension for his wife and child; whether he is aware that this man was married on 11th November, 1916, the day after being discharged from hospital and classed as Al: that, prior to his discharge from the Army in September, 1917, he again contracted illness and was discharged with a pension for himself and wife and, subsequently, a child, the pension for his wife and child having since been discontinued; and whether he will take steps to have the pension restored and the arrears paid?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): As marriage took place after the man S removal from duty for the disability for which he is in receipt of pension, the wife is not eligible for allowance under the terms of the Royal Warrant. The question of the child's allowance is under consideration and I will communicate with my hon. Friend on this point as soon as possible.

Mr. WHITE: Is it not the fact that it was before the actual removal from duty that this second disability was incurred?

Mr. MACPHERSON: No, I think not.

Mr. WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into that point: that is my information?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes.

ARMY SERVICE CORPS (J. W. BACON).

Mr. WHITE: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reconsider the case of ex-Private James William Bacon, No. T/419190, Army Service Corps, who was discharged from the Army with disability attributable to military service, which has now been altered to aggravated by military service; whether he is aware that, prior to Bacon joining the Army, he was a strong healthy man; that he is now totally incapacitated; and that his pension is now only 50 per cent.; and whether he will take such steps as will restore this man to full pension, especially as his medical advisers certify him as totally unable to follow any employment whatever?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The Ministry has at no time regarded the disability as other than aggravated by service, although, unfortunately, the basis of entitlement was first incorrectly notified to the man as attributable. He has, of course, a right of appeal to the tribunal on that
question and has been so informed. He is at present receiving full treatment allowances in lieu of pension and no occasion arises, therefore, to review his award of pension so long as treatment with allowances continues.

WIDOW'S PENSIONS.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has yet come to any decision in the case of Mrs. Wood, widow of the late Private William F. Wood, No. 27621, who died one day after the expiration of the seven years' limit under Article 11 of the Royal Warrant, and whose case has been under consideration since the beginning of April last?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that, having regard to the quite special circumstances of the case referred to, it has been found possible to make an award of pension provisionally at the rate of 20s. a week in place of the existing award of 13s. 9d.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he also be able to see when he is considering this question, that of the extension of time generally?

Mr. MACPHERSON: That has been considered, as well as this individual case.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of his Department in W case, No. 10646, Royal Engineers, in which a pension was refused to a widow and three children on the ground that the death of the husband was mainly due to alcoholic excess; whether he is aware that the medical officer who conducted the post-mortem examination attributed death to dilatation of the heart, probably due to acute alcoholism, and arteriosclerosis; and why the Ministry of Pensions has in this case departed from its usual rule of giving applicants for pension the benefit of the doubt?

Mr. MACPHERSON: As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, I have gone into this case very fully and sympathetically, but I could find no reasonable doubt that the cause of death had no connection with military service.
The case has been heard by the Appeal Tribunal, who confirmed, and thus made final, the decision of the Ministry.

Major WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the specific question put down on the Paper namely, why did the probability become a certainty when it was put before the tribunal?

Mr. MACPHERSON: It was because of the probability that the case went to the Appeal Tribunal, which is an independent tribunal outside the Ministry altogether, and they gave the decision to which I have referred.

Major WOOD: If the doctor said it was a probability, does not that imply that there was a doubt, and why did the Ministry give the doubt against the widow and children?

Mr. MACPHERSON: They gave their decision knowing full well that the case would be re-heard before this independent tribunal.

Major WOOD: Are we to understand that the Ministry of Pensions modified their decision because there was an Appeal Tribunal behind them?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Not at all.

ASSESSMENT (J. PENNY).

Mr. HALLS: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can state, in the ease of ex-Private J. Penny, 35, Spring-wood Yard, Ramsbottom, who is suffering from valvular disease of the heart, due to service in the Army, which prevents him from working, why his pension has been reduced from £2 per week to 16s. per week; and, seeing that as this man has himself, a wife, and two children to keep it means either actual starvation or going to the Poor Law Guardians for additional help, will he have inquiries made?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The award of pension at the rate of 16s. a week is in accordance with the degree of disablement assessed by the Medical Board which examined this man last month. If he is dissatisfied with this assessment he has a right of appeal to a Medical Appeal Board.

Mr. HALLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since this question was put down the man has had a further hear-
ing, and has now had his pension reduced to 30 per cent., or 12s. 6d.? In view of the fact that the man cannot work, is not that a reason for further inquiry into the case?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am most anxious and willing to make any further inquiries suggested by my hon. Friend. I did not know that he had been reexamined since the question was put down. I will look into the matter again.

TREATMENT ALLOWANCE (L. CONNOLLY).

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 8 and 9.
asked the Minister of Pensions (1) whether he is aware that an ex-soldier named Laurence Connolly, of 38, Church Street, Hamilton, was examined by a medical referee on 19th November, 1921, who recommended home treatment; that on 8th December, 1921, he was again examined at the cardiac clinic, Glasgow, and was then stated to be fit for work; that a still further examination was made into the condition of this man on 16th January, 1922, by the cardiac specialist, who decided he was unfit for work and recommended in-patient treatment; and that during the whole of the period between 19th November, 1921 and 16th January. 1922, Mr. Connolly was unfit for work and no treatment allowance was granted: that, if so, will he state the reason why treatment allowance was withheld;
(2) whether he is aware that an ex soldier named John E. Kelly, of 196, Glasgow Road, Burnbank, Hamilton, has been refused treatment allowance on the ground that his disability is such that he would not be unable to work at a remunerative occupation; that the disability from which Mr. Kelly suffers affects; his eyesight, and that he has to use special glasses; that it is practically impossible for a man in Mr. Kelly's condition to obtain employment as a miner, which is the occupation to which he belongs: will he state what kind of remunerative occupation he is fit for in the opinion of the doctor who examined him; and whether any, or what, steps will be taken by the Pensions Department to assist Mr. Kelly in finding such occupation?

Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend appcars to be under some misapprehension as regards the conditions govern-
ing the grant of treatment allowances. These allowances are not granted because the man may be physically unable to work, but only if, in consequence of a course of treatment approved by the Ministry, he is rendered unable to provide for his own support and that of his family. Neither fitness nor unfitness for work is itself a criterion, and any such expression of opinion by a medical officer in this connection is therefore irrelevant, and, indeed, contrary to official instructions. In the short time available I have not been able to get a full report on the individual cases, but I hope to be in a position to write to my hon. Friend about them in a few days.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think his reply covers both questions, 8 and 9?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I think so.

Mr. BROWN: Pursuing the question further, does not the right hon. Gentleman think a man's occupation ought to be judged by the occupation he was following? A tribunal can say a man is fit for work, but he may be unfit to follow a particular occupation.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a speech.

METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION (TRANSMISSION).

Lieut-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the meteorological information now sent out by the Air Ministry in Morse could be changed to telephony, in order that the information might be interpreted more easily by farmers and others equipped with receiving apparatus?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain GUEST): The telephonic transmission would be additional to, and not in place of, the present telegraphic transmission in Morse, which is necessary under international arrangements. The cost of such a duplicate service would involve a capital expenditure of £5,000 and an annual upkeep of about £1,500. The provision of such a service will be considered when funds are available.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are such telephonic reports to-day sent out from Paris?

Captain GUEST: Yes, I am aware of that fact, but am not responsible for the way the French get their money.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

ESTABLISHMENT AND EQUIPMENT.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the statement issued by the Rolls-Royce firm that unless more orders can be given to them for the construction of aircraft engines they will have to close down that branch of their business; whether he is aware that many other firms engaged in the manufacture of aircraft and air engines are in a similar position; whether the Air Ministry intend to do anything to prevent such a state of affairs; whether he has any information to show how long the aircraft industry as a whole can exist on the present basis in this country; and whether these matters are receiving, or will receive forthwith, the attention of the Committee of Imperial Defence?

Captain GUEST: My attention has been drawn to the statement mentioned by my Noble Friend, and I am sorry to say that there are a number of firms in the aircraft industry whose orders for aircraft are far below the production capacity of their works. Owing to the necessity for national economy, drastic reductions were effected this year in Air Estimates. Consequently, money is not at present available to permit of large orders for aircraft being placed by the Air Ministry. I cannot give any forecast of the kind asked for by the Noble Lord, but I appreciate the seriousness of the position in the industry and I can assure him that it is engaging the anxious consideration of the Air Council. As regards the last part of the question, the national capacity to pro duce an adequate supply of aircraft and engines in war time is an important aspect of the problem of national air defence, which is already under con sideration by the Committee of Imperial Defence.

Viscount CURZON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a most serious position may shortly arise if this and many other firms in the country are compelled to close down or go out of business altogether, and are the Air Ministry prepared to look upon this and do nothing whatever to help these firms?

Captain GUEST: I can assure my Noble Friend that we do not regard this situation except with a feeling of grave alarm, and we have made it our duty to represent this strongly to the Government.

Viscount CURZON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what percentage of the total Vote for Air Services is expended upon the actual provision of machines, repairs, and personnel, respectively; how many pilots and observers are on the active list and actually operating to-day; and what is the total strength of other officers and men on the establishment of the Royal Air Force?

Captain GUEST: In regard to the first question, I assume that my Noble and gallant Friend desires some information which is not contained in the Air Estimates, but I am not clear what precisely it is. The main provision for Air Force pay will be found under Vote 1 of the Air Estimates, and the cost of the maintenance of Air personnel under Vote 2. The money expended upon the provision of aeroplanes and their equipment is shown under Votes 3 and 9. Provision for repairs is partly included under the latter Votes, but repairs; are also undertaken, to a large extent, by service personnel, and it would, therefore, be difficult to disentangle the cost of such repairs from the Personnel Votes. The answer to the second question is that, according to the latest returns available, there are 1,862 qualified pilots and 109 observers. As regards the last question, there are 958 non-flying officers. This figure is partly made up of ex-warrant officers and other specialist experts who came to the Royal Air Force during the War, and whom it has been necessary, for various reasons, to retain temporarily. This number, therefore, will in the future constantly decrease, and will be reduced by about 200 within the next few months. Thereafter it will decrease steadily until it shrinks to a total of 530, which consti-
tutes the present establishment of the non-flying list. The number of other ranks is 25,887.

HENDON PAGEANT.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will take steps to see that in future air pageants of the Royal Air Force, such as that recently held at Hendon, bombing displays will not be carried out against imitation Arab villages or representations of any other townships particularly peculiar to our friendly races?

Captain GUEST: I fear my hon. Friend is misinformed regarding the architectural features of the village to which he refers. The desert stronghold at Hendon was not intended to represent an Arab village, being, in fact, designed in a style assignable to no particular country or age, and I therefore see no reason for taking any steps in the matter. A more correct view than that taken by my hon. Friend is expressed in a well-known weekly journal, where, in describing the village, it is observed that the internationalism of its architectural style suggested Bolshevism in the architect's profession.

FRUNCH AND BRITISH SQUADRONS (COST).

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to a statement by Lord Weir that a French squadron costs but a quarter of what it costs to maintain a British squadron; what are the causes which bring it about; and what steps he proposes to take?

Captain GUEST: I have seen the statement referred to, but I do not know on what basis Lord Weir's estimate was framed. In any case, I think that deductions from published figures of air expenditure in the two countries must be subjected to so many qualifications as to render the comparison illusory. I may point out, for example, that French personnel are provided by compulsory service and that British Air Estimates include expenditure of a kind which the French meet under Army and Navy Votes. The French Air Service is almost entirely concentrated at home, which enables a greater part of the training to be done with the unit than is the case
with us. Further, owing to the French mechanic being conscripted, it is possible to give less training to skilled personnel than is necessary in the British Service, where we have to teach them their trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

MURDER OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state who is conducting the inquiry into the recent murder of British subjects in Egypt; whether the British Government is taking part in this; and what is the present status of the British Government in relation to the Egyptian Government in such matters and general matters of administration?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The inquiry referred to is being conducted by the Egyptian Government, with such assistance from the British military authorities as may be properly afforded. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the correspondence published in the White Paper Egypt No. 1 (1922).

MEXICO.

Mr. ERSKINE: 21.
asked the Under- Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Mexican Government has formally ratified the agreement come to in New York recognising their external debt obligations; and, if so, whether he can give details and particulars of the proposals?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My latest information is that on 30th June the agreement was still under consideration by the Mexican Government. I have not yet heard of its ratification.

Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER: Has my hon. Friend taken any steps to ascertain what are the details of this particular proposal, as asked in the latter part of the question?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I stated yesterday that we would make inquiries. This is a private Committee and it is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the British Government.

Major LOWTHER: No; but I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether they have done so—whether they have made the inquiries?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will look into that.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. W. THORNE: On a point of Order. There is a question on the Paper, Mr. Speaker, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Swan), and it seems in danger of being passed over. May I ask your ruling as to what an hon. Member should do who puts down a question, and then finds he is detained in one of the Committees upstairs?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member (Mr. Thorne) can put it for his hon. Friend when we come to the second round.

GERMANY (INTERNATIONAL LOAN).

Mr. HANNON: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the serious internal situation in Germany, he will take steps to ensure a resumption of negotiations to provide that country with an international loan?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): In view of the outcome of the recent meeting in Paris of the Committee of Bankers appointed by the Reparation Commission, I do not see what steps His Majesty's Government could usefully take at present in the sense desired by my hon. Friend.

Mr. HANNON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the appalling condition of Germany now that the mark is at 2,000 to the £l, and, in view of the almost inevitable collapse, can the Government not do something now to get a loan?

Sir R. HORNE: Does my hon. Friend suggest that the loan should be provided for Germany? The Government would have to provide the money for the loan.

Mr. W. THORNE: Assuming that Germany goes bankrupt, have the Government considered exactly what they are going to do?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not think that Germany is very solvent at the present time. The state of Germany is a constant source of anxiety to the Government.

HOUSE OF LORDS (PEERESSES).

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to introduce such legislation as may be necessary to permit peeresses in their own right to sit in the Upper House?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave to a question by the hon. Member for Louth on the 14th June last.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND.

Captain BENN: 27.
asked the Prime Minister what services are at present rendered to the State by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and when it is proposed that the appointment should cease?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on the 9th February last, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, and to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull Central on 13th February last-Captain BENN; Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that; circumstances have somewhat altered since the 13th February? Are we to go on paying indefinitely for services which are of a dwindling value?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry to say that a good deal of the work has still to be done and it must be done by somebody.

Captain BENN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the announcement made by the Colonial Secretary yesterday, in which he explained that he was responsible for most of the Irish affairs and was responsible for the staff of the Irish Office?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I said nothing of the sort. On the contrary, I said that it would be quite impossible for me to give general direction and supervision for which I am taking responsibility if I do not have the assistance of the Irish Office and its full staff.

Colonel NEWMAN: Why is the Chief Secretary not now in his place?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am responsible and I ought to have been in my place. I apologise to the House for not being present when the questions addressed to the Chief Secretary were called.

AIR POWER.

Major-General SEELY: 29.
asked the Prime Minister what definite steps His Majesty's Government propose to take in order to safeguard our air position and to secure the adequate and equal consideration of the needs of all three Services?

The PRIME MINISTER: A Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence has completed an inquiry into this question, and its report has been under examination by the full Committee. Before the Government take its final decision, I should be glad if a deputation of four Members of the Parliamentary Air Committee could attend a meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and lay its views before that body.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (ADMISSION OF GERMANY).

Lieut.-Colonel D. WHITE: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that he has stated that His Majesty's Government would be prepared to permit Germany to enter into the League of Nations, any official notification of this decision has been made, or will be made, to the German Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: No such notification has been made. For the rest, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply of the 26th June to a question by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin.

NEAR EAST.

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: 31.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the desirability of pursuing a peace policy in the Near East, he will issue an invitation to a round-table conference to Mustafa Kemal Pasha and recognise King Con-stantine, who is a constitutional king?

The PRIME MINISTER: In regard to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford on the 3rd instant. The attitude of His Majesty's Government towards King Constantine remains unchanged.

Mr. HERBERT: 32.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the failure of the Near Eastern policy of His Majesty's Government since the landing of Greek troops in Smyrna, he will reconsider this policy and make a fresh statement to the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot accept the statement in the first part of the question. I am convinced that events will more and more justify the policy pursued by His Majesty's Government in this part of the world. I regret that I can add nothing to the reply which was given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clackmannan and Eastern on the 21st June.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if negotiations are going on now for concluding peace with Turkey?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

TANGIER.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the negotiations with France about Tangier, he will consider the advisability of buying out the French interest and charging the same on the other side of the balance sheet?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I fear that the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend is not a practicable method of dealing with the question of Tangier.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is this not a question of financial interests, and are the French Government prepared to settle this question in conjunction with other international debts?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No. It is a very much bigger question.

Major C. LOWTHER: Is there any truth in the report published in the Spanish papers that it is the intention of our Government to meet the French and the Spanish Premiers before the Conference takes place?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, not before the Conference, but the Foreign Secretary will meet them at the Conference.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that under no circumstances will the interests of Tangier be surrendered?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sure that my Noble Friend will consider those interests.

CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Sir ARTHUR FELL: 34.
asked the Prime Minister if the removal of the Government veto on the construction of the Channel Tunnel will form one of the subjects for discussion at the next meeting with Monsieur Poincare, having regard to the great importance attached to the question both in France and England, as well as in Italy and Belgium, and the effect it would have on the depressed trade of Western Europe?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that such discussion would be useful at present. The whole of the time at our disposal will be required for the discussion of other urgent questions.

Sir A. FELL: May I ask if half an hour cannot be found for the discussion of a subject which is so entirely approved by the Chambers of Commerce both of France and England?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that half an hour will not settle a question which has been under discussion for at least a generation, and upon which there is undoubtedly a sharp division of opinion, and even military opinion at the moment is hostile to it.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Has this subject been discussed recently by the Committee of Imperial Defence?

The PRIME MINISTER: Not recently, I think.

MILITARY SERVICE CONVENTION: (GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA).

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the military service convention between this country and M. Tereschenko, purporting to act in the name of the Russian Government, was never ratified by the Russian Duma, he will say whether any British residents in Russia and Russian subjects in this country were called up for service under the convention; and whether any Russian subjects who declined to recognise M. Tereschenko's authority and did not join up for service are now being arrested, sentenced to terms of imprisonment, and deported by stipendary magistrates without any regard to length of residence or character borne in this country?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative. The Agreement did not require ratification. I have no information as to the last part of the question: no action is now being taken by the military authorities against Russians who did not join up for military service.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

EASTERN GALICIA.

Mr. MOSLEY: 36.
asked the PrimeMinister whether the Polish Government intends to hold elections to the Polish Diet in Eastern Galicia on 1st October; and whether, since, according to Article 91 of the Treaty of St. Germains, the Allied and Associated Powers alone are competent to dispose of the rights of Eastern Galicia, any representations have been made to the Polish Government in regard to their independent action?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: On 21st February the Polish Diet adopted a motion to the effect that elections to the new Diet should be held not later than 1st October. A report is awaited as to the attitude of the Polish Government in regard to elections in Eastern Galicia, pending which I am unable to make any statement regarding the desirability or otherwise of making any representations in the sense suggested.

Mr. MOSLEY: Did the Polish Government announce their intention of not holding the elections in Eastern Galicia to the Polish Diet, and if they do not, would this not be a violation of the Treaty of St. Germains?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: We are awaiting a report on this question from the Polish Government.

GERMAN REPARATION (ITALY).

Mr. HANNON: 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the early meeting of German and Italian delegates to discuss the nature of the goods by which reparation in kind may be paid to Italy, he will explain exactly the powers given to separate countries to take such steps?

Sir R. HORNE: Under the Reparation Chapter of the Treaty of Versailles and the Annexes thereto Germany is bound to deliver reconstruction material, shipping, coal and dyestuffs to the Reparation Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty. Under Article 8 of the Schedule of Payments and Annex 4 to Part VIII of the Treaty of Versailles Germany is bound, subject to the prior approval of the Reparation Commission, to provide such material and labour as any of the Allied Powers may require towards the restoration of the devastated area of that Power or to enable any Allied Power to proceed with the restoration or development of its industrial or economic life. Any agreements between Germany on the one hand and an Allied Power entitled to reparation on the other hand for deliveries in kind under this article are, therefore, subject to the prior approval of the Reparation Commission, moreover, as regards the year 1922 any such agreements are conditioned by the fact that the maximum value of deliveries in kind to be demanded has been fixed at 950 million gold marks for France and 500 million gold marks for other Powers entitled to reparation and that under Article 3 of the Financial Agreement of 11th March, 1922, the method by which deliveries in kind may be made (including the proceeds of the Reparation (Recovery) Act) is laid down and that the Governments agreed to prohibit the re-export of deliveries in kind during 1922.

LOCAL POLICE FORCES (PARLIAMENTARY GRANTS).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of the Parliamentary grant-in-aid of the local police forces in 1914; and what is the amount this year?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I have been asked to reply. There was in 1914 no grant from moneys voted by Parliament in respect of the cost of the county and borough police forces, but certain sums from "assigned revenues" were, under Statute, applied towards the cost of the pay and clothing and the pensions of the county and borough police, the total sum so applied in respect of the financial year 1913–14 being approximately £1,775,000. In 1918, a supplementary grant from moneys voted by Parliament was instituted with the object of bringing the total subvention up to one-half the net cost of the police under all heads, and the amount payable in respect of this grant during the current financial year is estimated at £3,880,000, in addition to the statutory grants as in 1913–14.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that in consequence of the extra police necessary on the roads for the regulation of motor traffic on point duty, the local authorities are now incurring greater expenditure on police than in 1914?

Mr. SHORTT: I cannot say without notice whether the strength of the police forces has increased since 1914, but certainly their work has increased.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMIT).

Mr. HANNON: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the speed of motor vehicles traversing the space between Abingdon Street and Bridge Street; and whether, in view of the large number of pedestrians who cross the roadway to and from the Houses of Parliament, he will make an order limiting the speed of all such vehicles to six miles per hour?

Mr. SHORTT: There is no power to make an Order limiting the speed of all
motor vehicles to six miles per hour. The traffic is well controlled at the place mentioned in the question, and I am advised that any special restriction as to speed at this spot is most undesirable. Though it would be impracticable strictly to enforce any such restriction, it would tend to traffic congestion.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: As it is difficult to gear down to six miles an hour, would not an additional refuge be more effective?

Mr. HANNON: Has the hon. Gentleman tried to cross at this point in the rushing traffic?

ROADS (RECONSTRUCTION).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 61.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he has had laid before him, as a result of his Circular of 16th June, any new definite schemes for effective modern road reconstruction; if so, of what nature; and whether necessitous areas availing themselves of the assistance of the Road Fund are expected to limit themselves strictly to undertakings within their own boundaries or whether, with the approval of the Ministry, these can be executed outside?

Mr. DUDLEY WARD (for Mr. Neal): A number of schemes have been submitted in response to the Circular, No. 156 (Roads), issued on 15th June, and it is expected that many more will be received by the middle of July, that being the date fixed in the Circular for submission of the schemes. The schemes already submitted are generally for the construction of new or the widening and improvement of existing roads. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

DEPORTATION ORDER (M. SZUMSKIS).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 41.
asked the Home Secretary whether M. Szumskis, a Lithuanian of 22 years' residence in this country, was arrested on the 24th May, sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour, and recommended for deportation for failing to notify the police of his change of address; and, whether, seeing that there is ample evidence that this man bears a highly respectable
character both among business and other circles in this country, that he tried twice unsuccessfully to join the British forces in the War, and in view of the triviality of his offence, he will institute inquiries with a view to cancellation of the order for deportation?

Mr. SHORTT: The facts of this man's conviction and recommendation for deportation are as stated in the first part of the question. I understand that an appeal against the conviction is pending, and until the result of the appeal is known, I can express no opinion on the ease. No deportation order has yet been made.

GARAGE THEFT (CONVICTION, LLANDAFF).

Mr. GOULD: 42.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the sentence of three months' hard labour imposed by the Llandaff (Glamorganshire) magistrate on Monday last upon Henry Clinton Roberts, aged 17, for being concerned in the theft of two magnetos from a garage: if he is aware that the case was rushed through without adequate time being allowed to procure defence for the lad; that the lad when charged immediately showed the police-where the goods were hidden, and that he had previously borne a good character; and whether, in view of its having been a first offence, he will exercise his authority to mitigate the severity of this sentence?

Mr. SHORTT: I am making inquiry into this case, and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. GOULD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman possibly suspend the sentence and allow the boy out on bail?

Mr. SHORTT: I am sorry I have no power either to suspend the sentence or to allow the boy out on bail. But if the circumstances justify it, I can recommend His Majesty to reduce the sentence. I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for bringing the case to my attention.

EXTRADITION (AEROPLANES).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 43.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the possibility where extradition
from a country situated like Austria involves crossing one or more other States with the consequent extradition difficulties of arranging for the prisoner to be brought by aeroplane?

Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid that the difficulties involved by the plan proposed by the hon. and gallant Member would be more formidable than those which may arise when an extradition prisoner is taken through the territory of a third State in the ordinary course. There is no need to anticipate any serious difficulty arising in the present case, if the usual methods be followed.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

FREE STATE CITIZENS (STATUS).

Mr. G. MURRAY: 45.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the precise nature of the status acquired by a man who, under Article 3 of the Draft Constitution of the Irish Free State, has became a citizen of the Irish Free State: what rights an Irish Free State citizen possesses and to what responsibilities is he subject as distinct from the rights and responsibilities of a British citizen; and whether there is anything in the Canadian Constitution by which a man can become a Canadian citizen as distinguished from a British citizen?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The draft Constitution does not purport to define the rights and obligations of citizens of the Irish Free State. What it does do is to confer certain specified rights within the Irish Free State on a class described as citizens of the Irish Free State and to prescribe the conditions upon which persons are entitled automatically to such citizenship on the coming into force of the Constitution. The rights in question are the right to vote at Parliamentary elections, the right to a seat in either House on taking the oath prescribed by the Treaty and the right to free elementary education. All persons who are domiciled in the Free State when the Constitution comes into force become entitled to these rights irrespective of whether they are British subjects or not, provided they satisfy one of the other conditions in Article 3 as regards birth, parentage, or seven years' previous domicile. It is quite true that there may
be British subjects then in the Free State to whom the conditions will not apply, and who therefore will not enjoy these rights, but the same State affairs could exist under the Canadian or other Dominion Constitutions. As regards the last part of the question, the Canadian Legislature has power to define who are Canadian citizens for certain purposes, and has, in fact, done so for the purposes of the Canadian Immigration Acts.

Mr. MURRAY: Will it not create a good deal of difficulty for Irishmen coming over here who are only Irish citizens? What will be their position in this country? Will there be a consular representative to whom they can apply?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think there will be any more difficulty than at present. There is now no inconvenience at all.

PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT (MUNITIONS).

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 46.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the small arms, artillery, and other munitions of war which have been supplied by His Majesty's Government to the Irish Provisional Government will be returned when hostilities have ceased?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I stated in reply to questions addressed to me on 9th February last by the hon. and gallant Members for Melton and Bournemouth, arms, ammunition, transport and military and police stores generally have been and are being transferred to the Provisional Government subject to a valuation, and it will be for that Government therefore to say how much of these stores they desire eventually to purchase.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Is it a fact that aeroplanes have been supplied to the Provisional Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, several have been supplied.

Mr. McNEILL: Against what enemy can they be employed, unless it be this country or Ulster?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They are to be used against the enemies of the Irish Free State, who are at present in many parts of Ireland, challenging by force of arms the authority of the lawfully constituted Government.

Mr. McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the late Sir Henry Wilson, when at the War Office, very strongly opposed the employment of aeroplanes even against rebels, on the ground that it would involve the making of war on women and children.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is very difficult to embark on a controversial discussion with regard to the opinions of a late Member of this House, who lost his life under such tragic circumstances, and I do not think his opinions should be quoted at a time when they cannot be argued and discussed with the freedom that should attach to a Parliamentary Debate.

FIGHTING IN DUBLIN.

Major C. LOWTHER: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information as to the casualties suffered in killed and wounded among Free State and rebel forces in Ireland since the commencement of the bombardment of the Four Courts?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no information in regard to these casualties beyond what has appeared in the Press.

Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to make a statement at the close of Questions on the real position in Ireland at the moment?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no special information to give the House to-day, beyond what is contained in the newspapers. I think the suppression of the revolt in Dublin is nearly complete, and I presume that the Provisional Government will now address themselves to the state of affairs in different parts of Ireland.

Mr. THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman receive communications from time to time as to what is taking place in Ireland at the present moment?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I do, but nothing like so frequently as the newspapers, and, on the whole, the information I have runs in no way counter to the general information supplied by the newspapers. At the present moment I have not any information that would add to the knowledge which the House has through the usual sources.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman not arrange with the Provisional Government for a daily bulletin to be sent to him as to what is happening in Ireland?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I am not going to worry these men who are fighting under very difficult circumstances, and, under circumstances peculiarly painful to them, are endeavouring to restore order in their own country. I am not going to worry them for communications from hour to hour.

Mr. G. MURRAY: I did not suggest that.

SPECIAL CONSTABULARY, ULSTER.

Mr. SPOOR: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any financial support has been given by the British Government towards the upkeep of the Ulster specials; and, if so, whether, and to what extent, the British Government exercise control over this body?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In reply to the first part of the question, Parliament will be asked to vote a Grant in-Aid of the revenues of the Government of Northern Ireland, of which part is intended as a contribution to the cost of the Special Constabulary; in reply to the second part, no direct control is exercised; but we expect the Northern Government to give reasonable and proper consideration to our views, and this they are usually ready to do.

Captain W. BENN: Is the money provided in the Estimates already, or shall we have a Supplementary Estimate for this?

Mr. CHURCHILL: A considerable sum of money has been taken in the Estimates, and has not yet been spent. If it be spent, and more be needed, a Supplementary Estimate will be presented.

IRISH REGIMENTS.

Captain CRAIG: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the developments which have taken place in Ireland since the demobilisation of certain Ulster battalions was decided upon, and in view of the desirability of giving Ulstermen the fullest opportunity of enlisting in Ulster regiments, the proposal
to abolish two battalions will be abandoned and the Inniskilling Fusiliers and the Royal Irish Fusiliers left as they are at present, two-battalion regiments?

Sir R. SANDERS: My right hon. Friend very much regrets that, although every consideration has been given to this matter, he is unable to alter the decision.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the height standard for recruits of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers has recently been raised to 5 feet 10 inches consequent on the ample numbers of men offering themselves as recruits; whether the recruiting for the Royal Irish Fusiliers is equally satisfactory; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of retaining the second battalions of each of these regiments?

Sir R. SANDERS: The height standard for recruits enlisting into the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers has recently been raised to 5 feet 10 inches, and recruiting for the Royal Irish Fusiliers has been closed. These steps have been taken so as to ensure that there will be no large surplus of men in these regiments when disbandment of the second battalions takes place.

KIDNAPPING.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total number of persons kidnapped by Free State forces since the Truce and the number kidnapped by Republican forces; and how many in each case are supposed to be alive and likely to be safely restored to liberty in the near future?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no means of ascertaining the number of persons kidnapped in Southern Ireland since the truce, which is now nearly a year ago. I am in communication with the Northern Government as to the number of persons taken from within their jurisdiction and believed still to be in illegal custody, and on this subject I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I shall give to his next question

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received from the Provisional Government replies to his inquiries as to the fate of the four
loyalists captured by Free State troops at Pettigo about a month ago; and, if so, will he state the nature of such replies?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I am still in communication with the Provisional Government with a view to ascertaining the whereabouts of these men and securing their release; and, as the House is aware, operations are now taking place in the counties bordering on the territory of the Northern Government which, I hope, will result in clearing up many points which are at present doubtful; but while the Provisional Government are engaged, in this area and elsewhere, in suppressing an armed rebellion against their authority, I cannot ask them to give their undivided attention to individual eases of outrage.

SOUTHERN LOYALISTS (COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES).

Colonel NEWMAN: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the compensation of loyalists in the South of Ireland, who have had their stock driven from their lands and have not been able to recover the same, and have had, in addition, been forced by threats to abandon their homes and taken refuge in England, has formed the subject of an agreement between the. Government of Great Britain and the heads of the Irish Provisional Government; and is he aware that these men have in the majority of cases no means of livelihood except that derived from farming?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. As I stated in reply to a question addressed to me by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) on the 3rd instant, this matter will have to be considered between the two Governments, but the present moment is not opportune for that purpose.

Colonel NEWMAN: What ought a man to do who is living exiled in this country, his land having been seized and his cattle stolen?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the circumstances are so urgent, and his distress is so great that he has no means of carrying on for the period—I hope a short one—which will elapse before order is effectively restored, he should apply to the Committee presided over by the
hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare).

Mr. G. MURRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman extended the powers of that Committee yet?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They—not so much the powers, but the functions and scope of the Committee—are in process of being extended.

MALICIOUS INJURIES COMMISSION.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 10.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the slow progress that is being made by Lord Shaw's Commission in dealing with the cases submitted to it, many of which are cases of old standing and require immediate attention; whether he is aware that in a recent instance, where the applicant for compensation inquired when his case would be heard and what was the procedure, he was informed by the secretary to the Commission, on 16th June, that it was impossible to inform him, even approximately, when his case would come on or to indicate the necessary procedure: and whether it is possible to take steps to accelerate the hearing of these cases?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the last part, the cases hitherto heard by the Commission have been selected by them with a view of settling large questions of principle the decisions on which will govern very numerous other cases, and it is to be hoped that as a result of these decisions and of the appointment of investigators and assessors in accordance with the Commission's terms of reference, the work of the Commission will be very greatly expedited. I am not aware of any additional means by which this end could be achieved.

Colonel NEWMAN: 11.
asked the Chief Secretary whether the second Report of the Commission to examine into Awards for Malicious Injuries in Ireland is ready for presentation to the Government; if so, whether this second Report will be also available for Members of the House who are not Members of the Government: and will he say when the first Report was presented and when it was made avail-
able for Members of this House and the general public of Great Britain and of Ireland?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The terms of reference to the Commission empower them to present interim Reports from time to time to the British Treasury and to the Ministry of Finance of the Provisional Government. The first of such Reports has already been received, and it is understood that the second will; shortly be forthcoming. No decision has yet been come to with regard to the publication of these interim Reports,
Colonel NEWMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that it will not be published in the Press, but only to Members of the Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I said nothing of the sort. I said almost the direct contrary to that.

Colonel NEWMAN: When shall we have this Report?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I said no decision has yet been reached whether the Report is to be published or not.

Colonel NEWMAN: 12.
asked the Chief Secretary whether, owing to the approaching absence of the chairman of the Commission appointed to investigate the awards made under the Malicious Injuries (Ireland) Act, investigators are to be appointed to proceed with the work of the Commission, and to endeavour to bring the parties together in various parts of the country; if so, will he say how many of these investigators will be appointed, by whom will they be appointed; by whom they will be paid, and will they all be Irishmen; and whether, having regard to the fact that the work of the Commission is to re-hear judgments already given in British courts of law, be will say who are the parties that are now to be brought together by these investigators?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am in communication with the Commission in this matter, and should, therefore, be obliged if the hon. and gallant Member would postpone his question to a later date.

NATAL (INDIAN SUBJECTS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 49.
asked the Secretary for the Colonies whether his
attention has been called to three pieces of anti-Indian legislation recently put for ward by the Natal Provincial Council; whether he is aware of the comments thereon in the Press; and whether he can do anything to prevent the enactment of this legislation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware that certain ordinances have been introduced into the Natal Provincial Council to which objection is taken by Indian organisations. It rests with the Government of the Union of South Africa to decide whether assent should be given to such ordinances if passed by the Provincial Council.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these ordinances are being denounced in India, not by Indian newspapers, but by such English newspapers as the "Times of India" and many others?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not quite see what answer my hon. and gallant Friend expects me to give to that piece of information.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Did not I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he regarded the opposition to this particular piece of legislation as coming from interested sources, instead of from people who naturally take the view of the English people?

Mr. CHURCHILL: However that may be, it rests with the Government of the Union of South Africa to decide what should be done.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman advise the Union Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am certainly not going to allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to lead me into a course involving strife and friction with the Government of the Union of South Africa,.

CORNWALL HOUSE (LUNCHEON CLUB).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the grave dissatisfaction of the late employes of the Cornwall House luncheon club and the Cornwall House staff, the Treasury will
consider the setting up of an independent Committee to investigate the working of the club in order to put it on a sound financial basis?

Sir JOHN BAIRD (for Mr. Hilton Young): I understand that the question of the future arrangements to be made as regards the Cornwall House Luncheon Club is at present under consideration by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who, in arriving at a decision on the matter, will no doubt-have regard to the views of the staff there employed.

NATIONAL MINES RESEARCH STATION.

Major KELLEY: 55.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether ho has obtained a new site for the National Mines Research station; and, if so, where is it?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): No, Sir. Many inquiries have been made with a view to discovering the most suitable site for the experimental station. Negotiations are proceeding, but, as they are not yet completed, and the choice depends largely on cost, perhaps it would be wiser not to make any statement at present.

FOOD (SALE BY NET WEIGHT).

Major KELLEY: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to make sale by net weight obligatory for any household commodities besides tea and bread?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): The reply is in the negative. The legislation which has been introduced is confined to the two commodities whose sale by weight is already regulated by an Order of the Board of Trade.

NAVAL AIRCRAFT CARRIERS.

Viscount CURZON: 60.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many aircraft carriers are now in commission and in reserve; how many ships are fitted for carrying aircraft; and
whether enough machines, pilots, and observers are kept either on board or at their attached aerodromes to provide for the full establishment of aircraft laid down for these ships?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): The ships in commission are "Argus" and "Pegasus"; the ships under construction or reconstruction are "Hermes," "Eagle" and "Furious";"Ark Royal" is in reserve. Seventeen battleships, four battle cruisers, and seven light cruisers are fitted with flying platforms. As regards the number of machines, I would refer my Noble and gallant Friend to the reply given on the 12th April to the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter). The number of pilots and observers is adequate for the aircraft actually allocated to the Navy.

Viscount CURZON: Is the answer to the second part of my question in the affirmative, or in the negative?

Mr. AMERY: I referred my Noble and gallant Friend to an answer in which I said that the number we thought desirable had been reduced, from considerations of economy.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand that the Navy has not got the number of machines that it really requires: and, further, are the Admiralty satisfied with the position? May I have an answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: It was contained in the last answer.

Viscount CURZON: On a point of Order. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Admiralty are satisfied with the position. That was not contained in the answer.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it was.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 62.
asked the Minister of Health if he is collecting the opinions of organisations of property owners and of tenants on the future of rent restriction; and, if not, whether he will consider this course, in view of the
guidance it may give his Department in reaching some solution of the problem?

Mr. PARKER (for Sir Alfred Mond): As my right hon. Friend stated in the answer which he gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Betterton), he hopes to be in a position shortly to make a statement on this matter.

UNCERTIFICATED TEACHERS, LONDON.

Mr. MYERS: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the London County Council have decided upon the introduction of 100 uncertificated and untrained persons as teachers in the elementary schools within their area; whether this decision has been suggested or recommended to the county council by his Department; whether the proceeding meets with his sanction or approval; whether any extension of the policy is contemplated: and, having regard to the imperative necessity for trained teachers to be in charge of children during the early period of school life, if he will take such steps as will ensure a reconsideration of the policy referred to, with a view to its being suspended or discontinued?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I understand that the proposal of the council relates only to classes in which the majority of children are under five years old. Perhaps, therefore. I may refer the hon. Member to the reply I made on the 13th March to the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Essex (Lieut-Colonel Hilder).

RIFLE AMMUNITION, BISLEY.

Captain Sir DOUGLAS HALL: 67.
asked the Secretary of state for War if he is aware that the little ammunition supplied to the competitors of the present Bisley meeting is very defective; and, seeing that the War Office possess an enormous quantity of rifle ammunition of excellent quality owing to the cessation of the War, will he take steps to supply some of this at once for use at the present meeting at Bisley, especially considering what great use the War Office made of the Bisley
crack shots during the War in training men in rifle shooting?

Sir R. SANDERS: The ammunition supplied for use at the present meeting of the Army Rifle Association, to which meeting it is presumed my hon. and gallant Friend refers, was of good quality, and no complaints regarding it have been received from Bisley. The best ammunition available has been selected for use at this meeting and for the meeting of the National Rifle Association which commences on 10th July.

Sir D. HALL: If I bring reliable information before the War Office that this ammunition supply has been very defective, will the matter be considered?

Sir R. SANDERS: Certainly, it will be considered: I hope to be at Bisley myself early next week, and will ask for a report.

INTER-STATE AIR SERVICES (AUSTRALIA).

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the statement of the Commonwealth Minister of Defence, that delay in the manufacture of aeroplanes in England is preventing the start of important inter-State air services in Australia in August and September next; and whether the Ministry has taken, or intends taking, any action to remove this delay?

Captain GUEST: I have been asked to reply. Although I have seen the reports in the Press of the statement referred to, I have received no other intimation that such a delay is taking place. Whatever may be the cause of the delay, there does not appear to be any justification for interference or action by the Air Ministry.

PRINTED MATTER (POSTAL DELAYS).

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: 63.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to the complaints that, under the new policy adopted by the Post Office, orders from wholesale houses, usually posted at the close
of the day in half-penny envelopes, are purposely delayed and delivery is consequently not effected until the 3 p.m. delivery on the following afternoon, which in practice means that a day is lost; and whether, in sympathy with commercial requirements, he will consider altering this procedure?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): A few such complaints have come to my notice. In order to relieve the sorting offices during the hours of pressure in the evening, the reduction of the postage on printed matter to id. was coupled with the proviso that correspondence paid for at this low rate should be posted before a specified time in the afternoon, if required to be, dealt with the same day. This restriction is on the lion's recommended by the Geddes Committee in their Report on the Post Office. In view of the considerable economies and improvements in staffing effected thereby, I regret that I am unable further to extend the scope of the reduced rate, which, I may point out, is below cost. Printed matter posted after the specified time, and bearing a penny stamp, is not subject to delay.

MOTOR RACE (LONDON TO ABERDEEN).

Viscount CURZON: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a paragraph in a certain London evening paper, of 5th July, in which it is stated that a certain peer was to undertake a race in a motor vehicle from London to Aberdeen, 610 miles, within 15 hours; whether he is aware that this would entail an average spend of 40 miles per hour; whether he has any information as to whether this statement is correct, and, if so, whether he will cause appropriate proceedings to be instituted against the peer referred to in the paper?

Mr. SHORTT: At present I know nothing of this matter beyond what is reported in the newspapers. If these reports be correct, I think it is most desirable that something should be done to prevent any repetition of such a proceeding. I am making inquiries.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this race, or what-
ever it was, is very much repudiated by-all motorists, and particularly by the motor organisations?

Lieut-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that the Postmaster-General recently travelled from Scotland to England at a rate far in excess of the legal limit, and would it not be better to take proceedings against him?

Mr. SHORTT: I do not know.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: How does the record of this Noble Gentleman compare with the record of the questioner himself?

Dr. MURRAY: Is it not a fact that peers and commoners who want to go to Scotland desire to get there as quickly as possible?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that the Postmaster-General was coming away from Scotland as fast as he could?

THREATS AGAINST HIS MAJESTY (JOHN SYME).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary why it has been necessary to keep John Syme under such close police observation, and what is the reason for the recent proceedings against him?

Mr. SHORTT: The reason is that Syme has on several occasions threatened to molest the King and members of the Royal Family, and has written letters to His Majesty threatening annoyance. A speech containing threats against His Majesty is the ground for the recent proceedings against him.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As Syme is continually coming out of prison under the "Cat and Mouse" Act, is he not as dangerous on these occasions as if he were released altogether?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Will not the right hon. Gentleman have him examined by three Harley Street specialists?

Mr. SHORTT: It is a fact that he is very dangerous when he is out, and the
alternative is between letting him die in prison of hunger-striking or letting him out. He is a very dangerous man and very difficult to deal with.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

FABRIC GLOVES AND COTTON YARN.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet has reconsidered, or intends to reconsider, their decision to proceed with the draft Order under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certain representations by a very important and influential deputation received yesterday from the Lancashire cotton industry against the inclusion of one particular item in the draft Order are being considered by the Cabinet. The deputation has been given an opportunity to furnish further information, and the final decision of the Government in the matter will be announced as soon as possible.

Captain W. BENN: Has the Prime Minister's attention been directed to the fact that the evidence taken by this Committee is now six months old and is rapidly losing its value if the decision is postponed much longer?

Major M. WOOD: Will the whole of the draft Order be postponed with the other articles mentioned in the Schedule?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHFR-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the delay in issuing this Order, large numbers of German gloves are being sent into the country, thereby throwing out of work large numbers of English workmen and women?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Is the consideration of the Cabinet only to be applied to one of the articles in the draft Order or to all of them?

The PRIME MINISTER: The deputation was in reference to one particular item. We promised to consider the statements and figures they placed before
us and these had reference to one item alone.

Mr. KILEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive deputations from those concerned in the other commodities?

Captain BENN: When may we expect the decision of the Cabinet?

The PRIME MINISTER: The deputation promised to send a full statement of particulars in the course of the next few days. It depends upon them. As soon as we receive those particulars we shall consider them and come to a decision.

Major-General SEELY: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing this matter, which gravely affects a large number of workmen residing in constituencies, one of which is my own?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the Order must be discussed by the House of Commons.

Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this Order is made in the Recess it is not necessary to bring it before the House? Can we have a pledge that no Order in respect of these articles will be brought into force before the House has had an opportunity of discussing it?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think it is fair that the House ought to have an opportunity of discussion. I pressed the deputation yesterday to send us the information as soon as possible, because I feel that the House ought to have an opportunity, before the Adjournment, of discussing the matter.

Captain BENN: Will the Orders relating to the other articles await the decision on the fabric gloves article?

The PRIME MINISTER: I believe they are all in one Order. Therefore, they must wait.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that over 22,000 operatives engaged in the Bolton textile industry have signed a petition protesting against the proposed duty on imported fabric gloves; and, if so, whether he can make a statement on the subject?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have no statement to make on the subject at present.

Mr. DAVIES: While the right hon. Gentleman is receiving representations from manufacturers and employers, will he give due weight to the opinion of the operatives, as well, on this important matter?

Mr. BALDWIN: I always endeavour to give due weight to everything that is put before me.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for next week, and also what business he proposes to take to-morrow?

The PRIME MINISTER: We propose to take to-morrow the Treaties of Washington Bill [Lords], Second Reading; the Government of Northern Ireland (Loan Guarantee) Bill, Committee; the Public Works Loans (Remission of Debts), Committee; Summer-time Bill [Lords], Report; Solicitors Bill [Lords], Second Reading; Salmon and Fresh water Fisheries Bill [Lords], Second Reading; and, if time permits, the Employment of Children Act (1903) Amendment (Scotland) Bill, Report.
On Monday, we shall take the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, Second Reading; Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill, Second Reading; Railway and Canal Commission (Consents) Bill, Second Reading.
Tuesday: Supply — Colonial Office, Stationery and Friendly Societies Votes.
Wednesday and Thursday: Finance Bill, Report.
Friday: Finance Bill, Third Reading.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that the House will be able to give due consideration to this list of seven Bills to-morrow, and is he aware that in all parts of the House there is a strong expression of opinion that it is unfair to the House to bring forward so many Bills, which can only be dealt with after 11 o'clock at night?

The PRIME MINISTER: The first Bill, the Treaties of Washington Bill, is an important Bill, but it is uncontroversial. I do not understand that there is any controversy about it.

Mr, HOGGE: It will require discussion.

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, there will be some discussion. There is nothing in the Second and Third Orders. I have seen the Public Works Loans (Remission of Debts) introduced for 32 years, and I have always found it very difficult to discuss it, even in the days when I was anxious to discuss it. The Summer Time Bill has been very fully considered, and the other Bills are not very important.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Who is responsible for this avalanche of Bills being launched upon the House of Commons in July?

Major C. LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill will give rise to a good deal of discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER: If that be the case, I am afraid it will be difficult to get it through. We want to get through these Bills as quickly as possible. This Bill has come down from the House of Lords. If it takes time, then I am afraid it will be impossible for us to dispose of it to-morrow.

Mr. WILLIAM SHAW: Seeing that the Canadian Cattle debate is not to be taken next week, can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that it will be taken during the week beginning the 17th instant?

The PRIME MINISTER: A statement will be made next week upon that subject. I am not in a position at the present time to give an answer to my hon. Friend.

Mr. SHAW: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the adjournment to-night.

BILLS PRESENTED.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL,

"to enable the Parliamentary electors in prescribed areas by direct veto to pro-
hibit the issue within such areas of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and also to prohibit the common sale or supply of such liquors in licensed premises, clubs, or elsewhere within such areas," presented by Mr. RAFFAN; supported by Mr. Broad. Mr. Galbraith, Mr. Hancock, Mr. John Murray, Mr. Sidney Robinson, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Mr. Aneurin Williams, and Mrs. Wintringham; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 180.]

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

"to provide for the payment of contributions towards the cost of benefits under the scheme framed and approved in terms of the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Act, 1919, and for matters incidental thereto, and for the payment from the Consolidated Fund of deferred annuities in respect of contributions under the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898,"presented by Mr. MUNRO: supported by Mr. C. D. Murray and Mr. Hilton Young; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 181.]

ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

"to amend the Law respecting the charging of certain fees and to make other provisions with a view to promoting economy and efficiency in public administration, and for that purpose to bring into operation and amend the Education Act, 1921,"presented by Sir ROBERT HORNE, supported by Mr. Fisher, Sir Alfred Mond, and Sir John Baird; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 182.]

HOUSING BILL,

"to amend the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, the Housing, Town Planning, &c, Act, 1909, the Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act, 1919, and the Local Government Act, 1894,"presented by Mr. MYERS; supported by Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Walter Halls, Mr. Robert Richardson, Mr. Charles Edwards, and Mr. Lawson; to be road a Second time upon Thursday,:20th July, and to be printed. [Bill 184.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Adoption of Children Bill): Sir John Baird, Mr. Gillis, Colonel Sir James Greig, Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Austin Hopkin-son, Mr. Inskip, Sir Robert Newman, Mr. Reginald Nicholson, Mr. Swan, and Mrs. Wintringham.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Townley.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill): Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. George Barker, Captain Bowyer, Lieut.-Colonel Spender Clay, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Fisher, Major Gray, Mr. John Guest, Lieut.-Colon el Jackson, Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Mr. Marriott, Lieut,-Colonel Stephenson, and Mrs. Wintringham.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Bill [Lords] and the Telegraph (Money) Bill: Sir John Baird, Sir Evelyn Cecil, Mr. Holmes, Sir Evan Jones, Mr. Kellaway, Captain Moreing, Mr. Remer, Mr. Royce, Mr. Shortt, and Mr. Waterson.

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee D: Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen, Mr. Armitage, Sir Herbert Austin, Captain Bagley, Sir William Barton, Lieut.-Colonel William Bell, Captain Wedgwood Bonn, Commander Bellairs, Colonel Bowles, Sir Thomas Bramsdon, Brigadier-General Brown, Major Cayzer, Sir Watson Cheyne, Sir Stuart Coats, Sir Martin Conway, Sir Clifford Cory, Mr. Thomas Davies, Mr. David Davies, Colonel Du
Pre, Mr. Edgar, Sir George Elliott, Mr. Erskine, Captain Foxeroft, Mr. Gould, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry Grayson, Mr. Albert Green, Mr. John Deans Hope, Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Lyle-Samuel, Sir Ashton Lister, Mr. Mason, Brigadier-General Palmer, Mr. Purchase, Mr. Rae, Mr. Sidney Robinson, Sir Alfred Smithers, Mr. Strauss, Brigadier-Gen oral Surtees, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Matthew Wilson, and Sir Courtenay Warner.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twelve Members to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill): Viscountess Astor, Sir John Baird, Mr. France, Major Sir George Hamilton, Mr. Dennis Herbert, Lieut.-Colonel Hurst, Major Christopher Lowther, Mr. Macquisten, Mr. Murchison, Mr. Shortt, Mr. Sturroek, and Mrs. Wintringham.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Tramway Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to Allotments in Scotland."[Allotments (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]

ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 183.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[16TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

REPORT [18th May.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

(CLASS II.)

Resolution reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £95,284, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923. for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade.

Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. ROBERTSON: I beg to move to leave out"£95,284,"and to insert instead thereof"£95,184."
During the past few years there have been many discussions in this House on the mining industry. Nearly every aspect of the subject has been dealt with— wages, output, hours of labour, profits, etc., from the mineowners and the miners' point of view. The general public has not been lost sight of. The price they are charged for their coal. The greed of the miner, the exactions of the coalowner or middlemen, have each come in their turn In all these discussions there has been one factor to which very little attention has been paid, namely, the price paid by the miner in disease and in fatal and non-fatal accidents. A Scottish song-strews has called the harvest of the sea the lives of men. It can be said with as much truth that coal is the lives of men I want to refer to the fatal and non-fatal accidents in the mines of Creat Britain, and to suggest a means that will reduce them. Two points of view will, no doubt, be brought to the notice of the House, in order to minimise the case I am about to make. We shall be told that accidents were lower in the year 1920 than in any previous year, and we shall be told that the mines of Great Britain are the safest in the world. I will anticipate these two arguments by pointing out that if there is any reduction it is very small, and the data is insufficient. I doubt the data upon which
to base such a claim. We do not know the number of shifts worked by the men and boys in the danger zone, compared with a normal period
The comparative safety in the British mines as compared with those in other parts of the world has nothing to do with my case. The question I ask myself is: Is there a high accident rate in the mines of Great Britain? Can that rate be reduced? That is the problem which I wish to put before the House, in dealing with this question. It is very difficult to do so without creating an impression that it is bringing a charge of neglect of duty against either the Ministry of Mines or His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines. I want to make it clear that I have no such intention. The miners' representatives, of whom I am one, do not always see eye to eye with the Secretary for Mines, but on this question of safety he has always been very anxious to assist, and any proposals which are made get his sympathetic consideration. As to His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, whatever may have been the feeling in years past and gone—and it was very often expressed publicly—that if they were not the tools of the coal-owners of this country, at least they approached the question of safety from the coalowners point of view. I am pleased to have this opportunity of giving my testimony that so far as my experience of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines in the West of Scotland, where I am most familiar with the coalfields, goes, they are an impartial, capable, hardworking body of men, and from what I have seen of them I think that they are overworked. They have a very high sense of the position which they occupy and on several occasions in recent years, when a serious disaster has happened at the mines, they have been at the mines night and day, the first to face the greatest danger, and to place themselves at the head of exploring parties, and the very last to leave the mine if there was any hope of rescuing anybody underground.
But in dealing with this question very few people, even those closely associated with the mining industry, have any idea of the number of mining accidents. They know that it is a dangerous industry, but often they are unaware of the extent of that danger. If you speak to anyone about the dangerous nature of the work underground, the first reason
you get for the danger is from fire-damp explosion. If it were only fire-damp explosion, mining would be probably the safest industry that is carried on in this country at the present time, but I hope to bring before the House, with the view of concentrating our minds upon the question, the nature of the accidents that do happen in mines. For the year 1920, which is the last year for which we have a full return, the fatal accidents were 1,103, and the non-fatal accidents—and I should like the House to consider for a few moments the non-fatal accidents— were no fewer than 117,000. These are cases of men seriously injured in the mines of this country. Taking fatal accidents: From explosions of fire-damp there were 26; from falls of ground, 544; shafts, 40; miscellaneous accidents, 335, of which over 300 were on the haulage roads. My object in emphasising the accidents underground, and the haulage accidents, is to point out later on that this is the place in the mines where the miner has got to face most danger. With regard to non-fatal accidents, it must be borne in mind that no account whatever is taken of them unless the injured person is off work for more than seven days. That is to say, over and above the 117,000 non-fatal accidents, there are the men who are injured, of whom no account is taken, because they were not off work seven days.
4.0 P.M.
Of the non-fatal accidents that are recorded explosions of fire damp account for 130. Again I ask people to reflect on the figure. Falls of ground account for 41,358, shaft 486, and miscellaneous 64,781, but of these miscellaneous accidents 40,000 were caused by haulage—these are cases in which people were off work for more than seven days—and on the surface there were 10,572. I will give now the percentage of the fatal accidents. 49.7 per cent. were due to falls of ground, 21.97 to haulage, 11.15 to miscellaneous accidents, 2.3 to explosions of fire damp, 3.22 to shaft, and 12.39 to surface. We find almost exactly the same proportion borne out in connection with non-fatal accidents. 06 per cent. of the non-fatal accidents were duo to explosions of fire damp, falls of ground 35.08, shaft 39, haulage 24.61, miscellaneous 30.71, and surface 9.13. Again, hon. Members will notice that 70 per Cent. of the non-fatal accidents in the
mines are brought about by two causes— falls of the face where the miner is engaged cutting the coal and accidents upon the haulage roads. It is claimed that the accident rate has been reduced for 1920. I do not think anyone who has studied the question can make a claim for a reduction upon one year. We must take periods of time. I understand the custom has been to take periods of 10 years, and that gives a much better guide. If we take the year 1920 we find that a change has taken place in the method of giving the statistics which makes it very difficult for a layman to follow them. But if we take what is possibly the best guide, namely, the rate as calculated on the tons of mineral per man, we find that in 1920 the accident rale is as high as it has been during any period of 10 years since 1883. While that may be to some extent a guide, it is also to some extent misleading. From the figures I have given it will be seen that the miners' great enemy is not fire damp, but falls from roofs and sides and haulage accidents. I believe my mining colleagues in this House, and the mining population generally, will agree with me that we are not so much in need of new legislation, as of some machinery or power to see that the existing legislation is carried out in the mines of the country. If I have made the figures sufficiently clear, it should be driven home to hon. Members that, in dealing with the question of reducing accidents, attention must be concentrated on those accidents arising from falls of roof and sides, and those which take place in connection with haulage.
It will be noticed that there was quite a large percentage under the heading of "Miscellaneous," which includes accidents from over-winding and quite a variety of other causes. Some time ago, in this House, the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield (Mr. Casey), who has considerable knowledge of these miscellaneous accidents, especially those in connection with winding and hauling, made the statement—which was not contradicted by anyone representing the Department of Mines—that there were apparatus in the mines for preventing these, but he affirmed that these were useless, not because the construction was bad, not because they were unfitted for the purpose for which the inventor designed
them, but because when the accident happened, it was found that the apparatus was entirely out of order. That statement has not been contradicted, and coming from such a source we should have some answer to it. If that be the case, then it strengthens the view I am going to put before the House, that what is wrong at the mines is a lack of independent daily supervision. The men who make the daily supervision are paid, employed, dominated, and controlled by the coalowners, and are not "Safety men" in the true sense of the term.
There is one other matter in connection with the miscellaneous accidents to which I would draw attention. During the last few years, especially in the West of Scotland, we have had several explosions of fire-damp. These explosions have been caused by the use of electrical motive power in driving the coal-cutting machinery. One trembles to think what would have taken place had these happened in the fiery mines of Wales or of some parts of England. There is another power which can drive coal-cutting machinery and which is perfectly safe and harmless, and I ask the Department of Mines: Are our men's lives to be risked underground, until a terrible disaster takes place, simply because there are a few points in favour of electrical motive power as against compressed air in driving coal-cutting machinery? In my opinion, no doubt should be allowed to exist in these matters and wherever there is any possibility of doubt as to the safety of any appliance underground, then the life and limb of the miner should get first consideration. Ho should not be there while there is anything in the mine which is considered to be unsafe or likely to bring about an accident.
Anyone acquainted with the history of mining is bound to admit, that giving all allowance for the introduction of scientific safety arrangements, underground, the real reduction in accidents in the mines of this country, began 60 or 70 years ago when there were first employed Government Inspectors of Mines. Their number has now been increased until there are 70, but with the best will in the world, these men cannot inspect the miles of subterranean passages throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain. All they can do is to go to a mine after an accident has occurred. We
want mines inspection not in order that there may be an examination after an accident; we want mines inspected so that the mines will be made safe and the accidents will not occur. That should be the purpose of mines inspection. There are four grades of mines inspectors sanctioned under the Government. Three of them are employed and paid by the Government. We call them His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines. The fourth grade, and the most important, is that of the daily inspectors whose duties are defined under the Coal Mines Regulations Act. They are the men upon whom we really depend for the safety of the mine and the safeguarding of the life and limb of the miners. In some districts they are called "inspectors"; in other districts"deputies"—in some districts they are called "firemen" and in others "safety men."
My point is, that instead of these men being employed and paid by the coal-owners, they should be employed and paid by the Government. It is now nearly half a century ago, since the arguments against the principle of an independent examination of mines were exploded. Already we have 70 Government inspectors, as I have mentioned, who are independent and who are not under the control of the employers. If a colliery company or manager carries out the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulation Act there is no need to care who examines the mines at any time or in any circumstances. I submit we ought not to disregard the opinions of these daily inspectors themselves. They are a very highly trained body of men, probably the best type of workmen we have in or about the mines. They meet from time to time to discuss underground conditions and suggest means for greater safety and through their organisation, in public meetings and, I believe, even by deputations to the Department, these men have declared—not in the dark nor in a corner but openly and publicly—that they cannot carry out their duties so long as they are employed by and controlled by the colliery owners. Surely some consideration should be given to these men who know the circumstances and who day in and day out are acquainted with the changing conditions in the mines.
What are their complaints? They complain of the manner in which under exist-
ing conditions they are regarded by many employers—I am not going to say by all employers, because legislation is not required for the good employer but in order to bring the bad employer up to the level of the good. They are regarded by many employers as colliery officials whose duty is to get on with the work and push ahead with getting the coal, rather than looking after the safety of the mines. They complain that in many cases the districts which they have to inspect are too large to be inspected properly; that they are often called upon to do work other than the duties defined under the Coal Mines Regulation Act, and for these and other reasons they have, carried resolutions asking to be freed from the control of the employers and even from the interference of the work men. Sometimes a, workman will resent a safety-man telling him what he ought to do for his own safety. I have taken part during the past 30 years in many agitations for increased Government inspection, and the usual excuse for a refusal of increased inspection was the cost. We have been told over and over again that the number of inspectors cannot be increased, because to do so will cost money. If the "safety-men" are made employes of the Government instead of being employes of the colliery companies, it will not increase by one single penny the cost of getting coal in this country. You only transfer the safety-men from the control and domination of the employers to the control of the Ministry of Mines and of the inspectors to whom they are largely responsible for carrying out their duties. It may be said that that would be taking the safety-men away from the control and influence of the management. As a matter of fact, although the safety-men are regarded as officials of the colliery companies, they have not their duties defined by the colliery managers. The safety-men have their duties defined by Acts of Parliament, and if the manager interferes with them in any way it is the manager and not the safety-man who is at fault.
I must say a word about the accidents arising from hauling. In recent years the number of accidents from explosions has decreased, but we find that the number of accidents on haulage roads is increasing. The roadway was at one
time considered not the most dangerous part of the mine. It is now becoming a very dangerous part. Many of the accidents have been transferred from the coal face to the road. With so many men losing their lives or being seriously injured in connection with haulage, it is necessary that there should be an immediate inquiry to see whether something cannot be done to reduce the number of accidents. It is not so bad if a place in the mine becomes unsafe when there is an experienced man there, but it is well known that in many parts of the country the young and inexperienced lads are travelling the roadways. They are not trained and cannot detect danger in the same way as the older man who has been trained. If for no other reason than to protect the young life engaged on the haulage roads, there ought to be an immediate inquiry as to this class of accidents.
The accidents arising from falls from roofs and sides are in a different category from most of the others. Science has done very little for the safety of the miner in this respect. The miner of to-day safeguards himself against accidents from the roof in much the same way as the miner of 100 or 500 years ago. He puts up a prop or builds a pillar to the roof of the mine when the coal has been extracted You can reduce the number of accidents from the falls of roof and sides only by authoritative supervision and the prohibition of men working in immediately dangerous places. There would come in the real value of the safety man if he were in an independent position. Anyone who has worked in a mine does not like to go back on his experiences. Anyone who has worked underground knows that if you are working in a dangerous place you have to put it right,. When you are always in the place the danger is not so apparent to you as it would be to a fresh mind coming on the scene. You are daily working there, and you are anxious to safeguard yourself, but your mind becomes filled with your task of getting on with the work, and you do not see the danger. A fresh mind comes along, looks at the place, and says, "Get out of that; that place is no longer safe."
A mine is not like an engineer's shop. In the engineer's shop you turn the key of the door at night and the place is the same when you return in the morning.
The place that is safe at one moment in the mine may be extremely dangerous the next moment. There are the roadways as well as the face or the gate. What do the firemen and safety men say? They tell us that they travel the face or the gate, but very often they do not travel the roadways. I believe it has been suggested by the Secretary for Mines that we should have a safety-first campaign in the mines. That would meet with my whole-hearted support and the approval of everyone engaged in the industry. Such a campaign ought to be carried out, especially among the young lads who are entering the mines for the first time. By all means let us have this campaign. But the greatest safety-first campaign we could have would be to put the inspectors or deputies or firemen, as they are called, in the position of independent employes. Let their work not be output, not "get on with the work," not a demand that this or that dangerous place be put right at the week-end, but rather to make it safe immediately, and to allow no man to go there until that has been done.
I put last the question of economy. In this House during recent years economy has played a great part in all the Debates. If I own a horse I am expected to look after its safety and its welfare. In connection with mining underground I do not intend to argue the question so much by what might be saved if we can reduce the accidents by 50 per cent. I have calculated very roughly that compensation costs now about 3d. per ton, and that the total cost of compensation annually is about £3,000,000. I am leaving out entirely nystagmus and other diseases from which the miners suffer. To be added to the £3,000,000 is the value of the time lost by the 120,000 miners who meet with these accidents underground. I question whether from the standpoint of pounds, shillings and pence the compensation and loss of employment reach a figure less than 5 or 5½ million pounds sterling annually.
It has fallen to me on more than one occasion to go to the house of a miner and to inform his wife and children that the father has been killed. That is a painful duty. It is still more painful to have to go to the house of a miner and tell the wife that her little boy has been killed in the mines. When pleading for safety, let it be remembered that the number of boys engaged underground,
boys of 16 years and under, is well on towards 40,000 or 50,000. The number under 16 years of age who are killed each year averages 70. On this question of safety, do not let us go on allowing 1,100 men to be killed each year in the mines, and send our consciences to sleep by saying that there are 3,000 killed in the mines of America or some other part of the world. Do not let us allow 120,000 to be seriously injured, and go on excusing ourselves for doing nothing by pointing out that there are 300,000 injured in the mines of America in proportion to the number of men employed.
The miner's desire for a decent existence has involved one continual struggle against the low ideals of a section of the employers. We have had to struggle for education. We have had to struggle, and we are struggling now, for improved housing and a batter environment, and we are struggling for safety. Now that there is a Department of Mines—and I hope to see its powers extended and strengthened—every energy ought to be brought to bear on this question of reducing the accidents in mines, and whatever Government is in power under which the Secretary for Mines may serve, safety first ought to be the idea. The occupation of a miner under any circumstances is not safe and is very far from congenial. It is probably not possible to make it a congenial or a safe occupation, but the million and a quarter boys and men engaged in the bowels of the earth should have the assurance that when they go underground they will carry on that most useful occupation with a minimum of risk to life and limb.

Mr. CAPE: I beg to second the Amendment.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Robertson), I do not rise with any desire to make a personal attack on the Secretary for Mines, because I believe that since the right hon. Gentleman was installed in that office he has been prepared to give sympathetic consideration to all matters pertaining to safety which we have put before him from time to time, but we are desirous of bringing to his notice several matters that come under the head of his Department; and, secondly, I want to say that it is not my intention to traverse the ground that my hon. Friend has gone over, but I shall have to refer
to certain matters that he raised in the course of his speech. He gave some figures relating to fatal and non-fatal accidents in mines during certain years, and pointed out that it must not be assumed, because there seemed to be a decrease in the accidents in 1920 and 1921, that that was an indication that the mines were becoming safer than they were in previous years. If one goes back to 1917 and takes the years from then till 1921, one finds that there have been varying figures. We cannot take 1921 as a very safe and sure guide for the future, because we have to realise that during that year, for at any rate 13 or 14 weeks, all the mines in the country were standing idle, and then in the subsequent months, following July of last year, a large number of men were unemployed because of stoppages and partial stoppages of mines. The best figures that we can quote from are the figures of 1919 and 1920. In 1919 we find that the deaths from fatal accidents were 1,183, and in 1920 there were 1,130, but during the year 1920 there was also a month's stoppage, and when one runs out the death-rate on an average basis, one finds that there was not much difference between 1919 and 1920. The hon. Member for Bothwell has stated several reasons why the death-rate seems to remain nearly stationary, and he has referred to the question of deputies or firemen.
While they are the most important persons, so far as the inspection of mines is concerned, they are the only people in an inspectorate capacity who are not paid by the State. The inspectors of mines, chief, divisional, and sub-inspectors, are all paid by the State, but the man who is really employed, may I say, on the field of work, right in the pit, is an employé of the particular owner of the mine, and, therefore, it must be assumed that he has to have due regard to the interests of the person who employs him. I do not want to make an inference that the deputy does not give due regard to the safety of the men, but I want to point out that in a large number of cases the work imposed upon the deputy is too exacting to allow him to make a full inspection of the area he has got to inspect. In a large number of collieries the deputy has to deal with other classes of work than inspection, and in a good many cases the area he
has got to cover is far too extensive to be covered in the period allowed him. I want to suggest to the Secretary for Mines that he might give due consideration to that point, as to whether there could not be some stipulation laid down in regard to the area a man has to inspect, because I find that in putting questions to a deputy, while I know perfectly well that the area the man has got to cover is too large, he invariably tries to show that by a certain amount of energy he is able to get round the district allocated to him. I think, myself, that that is one of the means whereby we might have a better and more systematic inspection than we have at the present time.
My hon. Friend mentioned certain explosions from fire-damp that had taken place. I also want to point out that it is rather a strange, but nevertheless true, thing that nearly all the improvements or Amendments of the Coal Mines (Regulation) Acts from time to time have taken place after some gigantic explosion in some colliery, for the simple reason that all the public sympathy has been aroused, the Government of the day has had its attention drawn to the precariousness of the miners' lives, and the result has been that, generally speaking, we have been able to get some Amendments made to the then existing Coal Mines Act. I am one of those who believe that when these gigantic explosions have taken place, that wave of sympathy has gone from one end of the country to another and a genuine sympathy has been expressed by the people, but immediately it has passed over we have got back to the normal, and we have not applied all our energies, as we might have done, to bringing about ways and means whereby accidents could be lessened or considerably modified. During the period of the Sankey Commission, evidence was given in regard to safety in mines, and in looking up the Report of the Commission I saw one very significant piece of evidence that was given by a very important person—not by a miner, or a miners' leader, or a Labour Member of this House, but by a Home Office witness. He said:
If I was liable to be called over the coals for every fatal accident that occurred in my division, I may tell you that the staff of inspectors, if the Government inspectors are to be responsible, would have to be enormously increased.
Hon. Members will find that evidence in Volume I, page 103, Question 2506, of the Report of the Coal Industry Commission, presided over by Mr. Justice Sankey. Therefore, we have it from a very high authority that the inspection of our coal mines is not carried out as systematically and as adequately as it might be, and I want to suggest to the Secretary for Mines that he might turn his attention to the suggestion which I have already offered him. I want to pay a tribute to the gentleman who occupies the position of Divisional Inspector for the Northern Division, as his reports are of immense value, full of detail, and well worth the while of miners and others to read. He states that in the Northern Division the number of deaths from fatal accidents was 185 in 1920, and in the preceding year, 1919, it was 178, so that there was an increase. The non-fatal accidents, disabling men for more than seven days, during the year 1920 were 20,650 and in 1919 22,812, but you have to take into consideration the October Strike of 1920, so that there is really very little difference.
I want also to draw the attention of the Secretary for Mines to another thing which hardly comes under the category of accidents, and I am not exactly sure whether it comes under the right hon. Gentleman's Department or not, and that is the question of nystagmus. Nystagmus is growing considerably amongst the mining classes. It is a disease which is really caused by a man's employment in (he mine, and it is a disease, the magnitude of which I am not able to describe, but once a man contracts it there is scarcely any possibility of his escaping from that disease during the remainder of his life. It may be abated somewhat, but the recurrences that take place from time to time are of an imposing number, and these men who suffer from nystagmus very frequently find themselves in the position that they are not able to resume their work again underground as miners, while I have known, in my own small county that I represent, men who through that disease have unfortunately had to be conveyed to the county lunatic asylum because of the effects of the disease on them. I have been looking through the Estimates of the Ministry of Mines, and I do not find that any money has been spent for any research work in
regard to trying to prevent or combat that dreadful disease of nystagmus amongst the miners, and I think the Department might turn its attention to that very vital and important question, because, after all, money spent in that direction would be a very profitable investment for the people of this country. The time lost and the quantity of coal not produced owing to men being away with nystagmus is alarming, apart from the fact that this disease absolutely saps the very vitality of the man himself. I respectfully suggest to the Secretary for Mines that attention should be directed to this matter.
I want now to turn to another section of the mining industry, the metalliferous mines. The division I have the honour to represent has a good many of these mines in it, and a large number of men are employed. If there be one industry more than another in this country that is being governed and controlled under a most antiquated law it is the metalliferous mining industry; but I am glad to know, and I want to compliment the Secretary for Mines on it, that since he went into the Department in his present position he has set up an Advisory Committee to consider the question of bringing a Bill before the House at an early date. May I be bold enough to suggest to him that, if that Bill cannot be brought in before the Recess, it should be dealt with in the Autumn Session? I am sure he agrees that such a Bill is long overdue, because here again we have a most difficult and dangerous occupation. I find, according to the Report for 1920 of the Divisional Inspector, that there were eight fatal accidents under the head of "Accidents in metalliferous mines," and of those eight, seven were underground accidents and all happened in the iron-ore mines of Cumberland. These eight accidents were among the 4,000 or 5,000 men employed there. Let me quote the inspector's own statement:
All the fatalities occurred in connection with iron ore mines…From the nonfatal accident returns supplied by owners, the number of persons injured during the year at Cumberland iron ore mines and disabled for more than seven days was 350, as compared with 325 in the preceding year. There were 62 persons injured and disabled for more than seven days during 1920 at Furness iron ore mines. The death-rate per 1,000 persons employed works out as under: (a) above ground, 0.43; (6) below ground,
1.2; (c) above and below ground, 0.98. This is a tangible improvement on the abnormally unfavourable ratio of the preceding year, when the figures were: (a) 0.80; (b) 2.53; (c) 2.01.
We find, therefore, that instead of decreasing, accidents are increasing in this class of mine, and I hope I am not asking too much from the Secretary for Mines in asking him to use all his efforts to get an Act passed through the House, so that these men may have a better measure of protection than is afforded them to-day.
In the last few words I have to say I want to ask the Secretary for Mines to tell us, when he is replying, whether anything has been done in regard to reducing the inspection area of deputies, and whether his Department is going to do anything in regard to research work in the matter of miners' nystagmus. I urge him to give these matters active attention, so that when we consider his estimates next year we may be able to compliment him on having done something more than his predecessors to try to lessen the accidents in mines.

Mr. JOHN: I desire to impress upon the House the importance of the question which has been raised by the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment. On comparing the figures of accidents in the mines to-day with those of previous years, there is no doubt that we have a great deal to congratulate ourselves upon; to some extent there is a decrease in the loss of life and of limb in the mines. At the same time, when one considers the number of accidents, both fatal and non-fatal, that are taking place at the present time, one naturally asks whether the decrease is sufficient to warrant a condition of complacency and satisfaction in the minds of the community; whether it is not possible for the accidents to be reduced very materially in the near future; and why the margin of difference is so very small between the number of accidents in the portion of 1922 that has elapsed so far and the corresponding period 10 years ago. Does it mean we have reached the stage of perfection, where it is impossible for the mind of man to reduce the number of accidents in the mines of Great Britain, or that the number of lives lost and the number of men maimed are so negligible in comparison with the
number of men employed that there is no purpose in giving increased and more acute attention to the reduction of accidents? The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Robertson) said science had done all it possibly could with respect to bringing about safer conditions in the mines. I do not know whether science has been called into play with respect to the mines of the country especially in regard to the safety conditions of the mines. Monetary consideration has been given to men of science for their inventive genius in other directions, and I do not think it would be bad policy on the part of the Secretary for Mines to consider whether it is possible for the inventive genius of man to be brought into the Mines Department, to see whether something cannot be invented or some new ideas brought into operation with a view to reducing the loss of life in collieries at the present time. The loss of life is tremendous. In the 10 years ending March, 1922, 5,983 men and boys lost their lives in the mines of Great Britain. It may be argued that 10 years is too far to go back, and that it is not a fair basis for comparison, because great strides have been made since 1912. But if we take the nine months ending March, 1922, the number of fatal accidents in the mines of Great Britain is 699, and the non-fatal accidents 3,121.
We have from time to time asked questions of the Secretary for Mines about certain appliances that are on the market by the use of which it is claimed the number of accidents in mines can be reduced. I will refer first to shot firing safety appliances. The number of lives lost in the mines of Great Britain during the last 10 years in consequence of shot firing is 408, and the number injured 3,430; the number of accidents being 3.123. The Secretary for Mines, in his statement to the House on 18th May, made certain remarks to the effect that careful consideration must be given to any invention placed on the market: otherwise, it was quite possible that such an invention might be more injurious than useful. We dc not complain of that remark, for it is a sane policy to adopt, but surely there must be some limit of time for consideration. The experiments cannot go on indefinitely. Shot firing safety appliances have been on the market for the last 10 years. A number of colliery agents and colliery managers have been using these
shot firing appliances for the last five or six years. Some of them, who have had experience for years of shot firing appliances, have not only written letters recommending them, but have been advising the adoption of these appliances, because there was a possibility, and even a probability, of preventing accidents.
5.0 P.M.
Indeed, I am of the opinion that, were it not for the fact that these appliances cost money, the appliances would have been introduced in a large number of mines in Great Britain long ago. As evidence of that I think we can mention that in some collieries managers, after having years of experience of these appliances, have given orders for the appliances to be introduced, in the first instance, with a view to introducing them on a general scale into the colliery, but that, eventually, when the orders have come to the colliery agents, who are not so directly in contact with the colliery as the managers, they have cancelled the orders, and have refused permission for the appliances to be supplied, simply and solely on the ground that the cost of these appliances is one farthing per ton. Surely, one farthing per ton is a very, very small item in comparison with the life of an individual. Forty thousand accidents, or at least forty thousand misfires, are estimated to take place every year, and every one of those misfires contains the potentiality of an accident. One life that is needlessly lost is one too many, and I honestly believe it is time now for the Secretary for Mines seriously to consider the advisability of enforcing an Order in this matter upon the colliery owners of Great Britain. It has been demonstrated by the colliery miners; of Great Britain who had had the experience. The examiners and deputies, who are the responsible persons or are those who come most in contact with the work of shot-firing, have passed locally and on a national scale—also the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and others—resolutions of approval, and there have been expressions of satisfaction and commendation from managers of collieries. Consequently, I think the Secretary for Mines should take seriously into consideration this question, and not only with regard to appliances for safety shot-firing.
There are other appliances on the market and in other directions which will have a tendency to reduce accidents in the mine.
I should like to ask the Secretary for Mines whether anything has been done as the result of his invitation to an inter view between himself and the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Casey). On 18th May, the hon. Member for Attercliffe made certain statements with regard to overwinding appliances. The other day in the Rhondda a very serious accident took place in consequence of overwinding. A number of lives were lost and men were maimed, losing their legs and arms. Reading that report, the Secretary for Mines gave an invitation to the hon. Member for Attercliffe to come and see him to discuss the whole position. I should like to know whether, as a result of that interview, and assuming for the moment that the allegations made were true, steps are being taken to rectify that state of affairs, or whether it is intended in the very near future to take the necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of accidents of that nature. We have recognised that there are accidents that cannot be prevented. The human factor plays a very important part so far as the mines are concerned, equally with other industries, but surely there are accidents that can be prevented. There are non-preventable accidents, and all I hope is that the Secretary for Mines will endeavour to do his utmost to bring about a decision from the Committee which he informed us in reply to questions is sitting at the present time in order to consider the whole question. The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Robertson) said that a long period has elapsed since the last Mines Act was introduced—I think in 1911 or 1912.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: 1911.

Mr. JOHN: Practically 11 years ago. Rapid strides have been made in the development of the coalfields since then. There has been the introduction of machinery on an extensive scale, electricity has been introduced, and coal-cutting machinery which has revolutionised to some extent the work of the collieries to-day as compared with 11 years ago. We contend that the present Mines Act, notwithstanding all it contains and the amount of safeguard
it gives to the miner at the present time, is inadequate to meet the additional and modern conditions of working the collieries at the present time. I submit that the time is now ripe and opportune for overhauling the present Mines Act and introducing into it certain Clauses that will meet the present-day conditions of the workers in the mines. I therefore ask that the few suggestions that have been made shall be fully and seriously considered by the Secretary for Mines, and that, in addition, an answer may be given as to the result of the interview between him and the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division.

Mr. JOHN GUEST: I would like to deal with one or two points concerning safety from the practical standpoint, which, perhaps, have not been unduly dealt with by those who have spoken previously. The first point I would make is that the vast majority of our accidents come from falls of ground and from accidents on the haulage roads. A miner while he is at work in the face is naturally at conflict with the forces of Nature. He is brought face to face with dangers to-day which were hidden yesterday, and the Mines Act, so far as it could foresee, has made provision that he should have at his disposal in his working place a sufficient supply of suitable timber. It is to that portion of the Mines Act that I should like to call the attention of the Secretary for Mines. Suitable timber, to my mind, implies that there shall be in the working face, and within easy access of the miner, props of a suitable length, bars of a suitable character, a sufficient supply of sprags and a sufficient supply of lids or covering wood for the timber. In actual experience, and I speak with some knowledge of the facts, that is in many cases not carried out. There is timber, but there is not suitable timber; there are the means for a man to make himself safe, but there are not the ready means for him to make himself safe which, I believe, the Act intends there should be. A five-foot prop in a place where the seam is only 4 feet 6 inches high means that there is bound to be labour imposed on the man that is not contemplated. Often there is no covering wood, lid, or top-piece for the prop, and he really requires one when it is set. If the man has not one to hand it means additional
labour for him to fit some piece of timber for the particular purpose for which he requires it. It is a fact that, despite this Act of Parliament—leading as it does at the present time, that there should be a sufficient supply of suitable timber —there is in existence in many of our pits a system under which the men have become so accustomed to have to fit the timber to their need and make it suitable for the particular place in which they are working that part of their equipment is a saw, another is an axe, and that when they want top-pieces they very often have to take an old prop and hew it into shape. This means, of course, additional work, and not the same effective safety as there ought to be if there were adequate means at hand.
The miner usually is working on piece-rates. These piece-rates are based on the principle that he himself should do the timberwork, but, of course, they are based on the general assumption that it shall be suitable timber and handy for the purpose. The present system that has grown up, where they have to use the axe and the saw and expend their labour on making the timber suitable, takes away from the man's wages and hinders the efficient working of the place with prospects of safety. The attention of the inspectors of mines might be drawn to the imperative need for the men supplied in every working place with timber props, bars, sprags, and lids absolutely suitable for the needs of the place, and I am satisfied that if they had these to hand when they required them, and were not faced by this burdensome work when timber is required to be used, there would not be so many accidents as at the present time. In fact, I think that if our men had the adequate provision that the Act intends they should have many, if not all, of the forseeable accidents that occur to-day would be absolutely prevented. Our men are practical, they know the value of life and limb, and it is often because they are torn, on the one hand, between the desire to get on with their work and to earn money, and, on the other hand, the necessity of a long job with labour of no productive character that these accidents occur.
I would like to re-emphasise what has already been said with reference to deputies or firemen. We have no quarrel with these men. We realise the difficulty
of the work they have to do. They are a buffer-state between the owners and the men, and have a very difficult lot to fill. We realise their difficulties. They are handicapped from carrying out their work by the fact that they have too many duties to perform. They have areas unreasonably large, the men under their control are too many for them properly to supervise, and, of course, having too much to do naturally means that some of it does not get well done. They are responsible not only for the safety—we value their work from that standpoint— but they are responsible for output, for examination, for timekeeping, for general supervision; indeed, the deputy in some of our large districts is faced with responsibilities which undoubtedly far outreach the monetary return he obtains for his services. There is no question about that. We do not quarrel with the man. What we want is that he shall have a fair chance of carrying out what we believe it is intended he should carry out; that is, paying full regard to the safety of those working under him. We want him set free from the attention to output and general supervision in order that he may pay more attention to the state of roadways and haulage roads, in which parts of the mines practical men are not constantly engaged. The deputy should be entirely a safety man. He should be able to concentrate the main part of his energies upon attention to the safety of the roadways. The deputies have sometimes miles of road under their charge—and roadways where there is a continual change going on. The change is often almost imperceptible in the nature and condition of the roadway. There is constant travelling along those roads of boys and horses, and we feel— and I say it with all the emphasis I can command—that there are too many of our lads losing their lives in the mines to-day and too many of the ponies getting injured and killed. We believe much of it is preventable and can be prevented if there was that adequate supervision in the roadway that there ought to be. The roadway cannot be adequately examined while the deputy is expected to carry out all the work that he has at the present time. I hope attention may be directed to these two elementary and very practical suggestions, and that we may find a larger attention paid to proper timbering at the
face and to the limitations of the deputy's responsibility, in order that he may carry out more efficiently the work under his control for the safety of the mine.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I do not intend to intervene between hon. Members who speak with great personal knowledge and authority on this subject for more than a few moments, but I have had for many years a certain acquaintance with the mining industry in South Wales. I, therefore, do not speak without some knowledge, superficial though it be, of this subject. No one can have listened to the Debate this afternoon without being struck with the personal knowledge and touch of authority which comes from it, the two combined with a very remarkable moderation of statement. Far too little notice, I think, has been taken of the fact that there is a very much larger measure of good feeling and agreement between the employers, the officials, and the miners throughout the country than the public really understand. They who only take the mining problem from what they read in the newspapers understand but little. We have heard to-day from the authoritative spokesmen themselves that they themselves thoroughly appreciate the existence of a good employer. We know, and it has been touched upon in one or two speeches already, that when an accident happens in the mine there is a community of endeavour, utterly regardless of personal safety, to rescue those that are imprisoned in the mine. When such an accident happens, there is no question of employer, or official, or miner; all distinction is lost in the common human endeavour to avert any worse disaster than what has already happened. I have seen many examples of that in my personal observation.
I must say I was very deeply impressed, not only by all the speeches made, but particularly by the speech of the hon. Member who to-day opened the Debate and the very distressing statistics which he gave to the House. It affords, I am certain, matter of the deepest regret on the part of the employers and of the public—and, of course, the miners themselves—when it can be stated that in 1920 no less than 1,100 men lost their lives in this great industry and that over 100,000 men and boys suffered more or less serious injury. That, we all agree, is a very far from satisfactory statement. The argu-
meats which have been addressed to the Minister to-day have been in no sense—as I am sure he will agree—presented with any injustice—there has been no touch of it—but they were accompanied by a very reasonable request that every possible effort should be made, not so much for further legislation, but for more efficient administrative action. I was very much struck with that though there may be some reason for it. The argument is this: Administer fully the powers you have already got. I have some knowledge of the Coal Mines Act of 1911. One point was made by an hon. Member in regard to the danger of electricity. Section 60 of the Coal Mines Act of 1911 is a very-effective Section if put into effective operation. It says that
Electricity shall not be used in any part of the mine where on account of the risk of explosion of gas or coal dust the use of electricity would be dangerous—
and so on. The Section enumerates other powers. This adds point to what has already been said that further efforts can and ought to be made within the ambit of the ample powers already possessed for the protection of life and the prevention of accidents, and so far as I can assist my hon. Friend I would urge every Member of the House, present or absent, to do what the whole House would desire and that is to use every effort to minimise down to the lowest point this sad toll of loss of life and danger to limb and health.
In the points made by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Robertson) he put economy last. I think economy should be linked up with the very first statement he made. It is real good business to prevent accidents. Anyone who knows the working of mines or of any great industrial undertaking knows full well that the loss caused by an accident, even a trivial one as it may seem, is not confined to the man. It is the loss that happens by the stoppage of the mine; the loss of output which is occasioned by the serious accident, or the accident which looks serious, is a very great one. I am certain that on the ground of economy only, apart from the protection of the individual, it would be well worth while to exercise every possible effort to minimise accidents. There is just one other point I wish to make. I am old enough to remember debates in this
House—I read them long before I came here—and when I came into the House I heard these discussions in regard to the means being adopted for the prevention of accidents. I remember very well the Workmen's Compensation (Mines) Act, certain factory Acts too. It has been stated in these debates that if you place these further burdens on industry it will be almost impossible for industry to be carried. My mind goes back fully 25 years. I have heard very well-known men, men interested in these great undertakings, saying they did not see how industry was to be carried on with its further burdens. Experience shows that with a reasonable weight of burden, and with an earnest desire to operate reasonably the legislative and other precautions in industry, industry flourishes under these preventive measures. I believe the immediate abatement of loss of life and lessened danger to limb is linked up with further progress on the economic side of this great and vital industry.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I am glad that hon. Members opposite have taken this opportunity of initiating this discussion on the very important subject which we have had before us this afternoon. Hon. Members have raised, I think, very valuable points. The subject is one about which not only those who live in and about the mines, but everybody, every person, every Member of this House is interested, and I note the moderation and restraint of the speeches this afternoon which I am sure will not detract in any way from the effect those speeches have made upon us. So far as I am concerned, the question of health and safety is much the largest portion of my work, and to me it is far the most interesting. I thank hon. Members who have spoken for their kindness in giving me the credit, at any rate, for good intentions. I do not profess to be better than other Members of the House. I think we are all anxious to do our best in these matters. I only happen to be in the position of having more opportunities than many. Therefore, these suggestions made by the hon. Member for Bothwell, and what he said about our inspectors was, I think, to the point. I am very glad to find that public servants in a difficult position should occasionally get a spontaneous tribute to the way they
are doing their work. It carries much more weight than if I were to compliment them, but I should like entirely to endorse all that has been said as to their extreme industry and energy, and in their good feeling in doing their work. There was no better honour conferred than that of the late Chief Inspector, now Sir William Walker.
The hon. Member for Bothwell has criticised the method in which the figures have been arrived at. I think there is a good deal in his criticism, and I am trying to get them in future done on a main shift basis. But I think the hon. Member went a little too far when he said that, if we take the death-rate per million tons of mineral raised, we will find an increase. I have had figures worked out which show that in the decade from 1873 to 1882 the yearly rate of deaths per million tons raised was 7.42; in 1903–12, 4–76; and in 1920, a year by itself, the figures are 4.60.

Mr. ROBERTSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for the period 1872 1882, and from 1882 onwards, because I would like to have a comparison made?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: These figures were got out on the spur of the moment, and the figures asked for by the hon. Member are not available. I think, however, there is a decided improvement.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: The right hon. Gentleman did not proceed to give the figures for 1921.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I did not do so, because that is a year in which you cannot make a good comparison.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I wish to point out that during the last 10 years there have been no big explosions such as have occurred in the other 10-year periods.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What we have got to do is to reduce the accidents as much as we can. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) stated that improvements were often made at the time when public sympathy was especially elicited by some great accident. I hope that in the Mines Department, even during the time when we are fortunate in not having any serious accidents, we are not unmindful of our daily duty in this matter. Of course, the figures given as a comparison between one year and another must be
discounted if in one of the periods there has been a very large accident affecting the lives of several hundred men.
The main point which was raised by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Robertson) was that the deputies or the firemen should be State employed and should not be the servants of the managers. That point has been raised very often before, and only a few weeks ago I had a deputation on that very subject. I hold the Deputies and Firemen's Association in great respect, but I am sorry that I was not able to take the same view on this question as they did. What they suggest would require an enormous addition to the inspectorate. It would also require legislation so far as my Department is concerned, because I am now limited by statute to an expenditure of £250,000 a year. Although I am able to save a little on that, I have not enough money to employ the deputies and firemen all over the country. My main argument on this point is the one used by the Royal Commission in 1909, when this point was brought up by the Scottish deputies. They said:
That the firemen are the employes of the owners of the mines, and any interference with the powers of supervision and control vested in the management could only be justified on the strongest grounds which, in our opinion, do not exist.
My objection to the proposal is that it necessarily involves dual control, and that is absolutely fatal to the proper management of mines. It is essential that we should have some person solely responsible, and that person should be the manager of the mine. To take away part of his responsibility would, in my opinion, be a very dangerous course to pursue. With regard to some of the difficulties which have been raised as to the work of the deputies, I should like to say a few words. It has been said by more than one speaker, and I am not prepared either to contest it or confirm it, that the work given to these deputies is much too large. If that is so, then complaint should be made to the inspector.

Mr. J. GUEST: Then they would get the sack.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is laid down in the regulations that they are not to be given more work than they can do. This is the regulation:
Provided that any duties done by them or undertaken by any fireman or deputy in
addition to his statutory duties shall not be such as would prevent him carrying out his statutory duties in a thorough manner, and if any question arises on this point it shall he decided by the inspector whose decision shall be final.
It is quite clear from this that the inspector has power to give a final decision as to whether the duties placed upon the deputy are such as shall not prevent him from performing his statutory duty. I am very glad that attention has been called to this question to-day, and I shall consult the inspectors further upon it. I think the hon. Member for Bothwell rather suggested that the deputies were a little intimidated, and a little shy of mentioning defects which they knew existed, and that they were a little deficient in courage. I cannot but think that cases in which a deputy fails from want of courage must be very rare. At any rate, there is under Section 16 a safeguard that the workers in the mine can send down inspectors on their own behalf to see whether the work is being properly done, or whether the deputy is properly qualified.

Mr. SPENCER: The deputies themselves frequently at annual conferences make that charge, and that is the reason why we urged that they should be servants of the State.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think they are so modest that they rather underrate their own courage. I think they are more inclined to speak out if there is anything seriously the matter. Our inspectors are in close touch with the deputies, and if we can by discussing the matter with the inspectors get any improvement in this respect we shall be very glad to do so. On that point I have instituted since I have been at the Mines Department quarterly conferences of our divisional inspectors, which have to be preceded in their own district by conferences with the sub-inspectors, and the result is that any improvements which they think are possible go first of all from the sub-inspectors to the district inspectors, and then they come before a conference of the inspectors at the Mines Department. We have already had two or three of these conferences, and I think we have done a good deal to minimise some of the trouble complained of. I think it was the hon. Member for Workington who suggested we should have more inspectors. I am
not averse to that view myself, but there again I am handicapped by the need for economy, the recommendations of the Geddes Committee and other restrictions which have been imposed upon me. Perhaps in happier times it may be possible to increase the number of inspectors.
The hon. Member also referred to nystagmus. Of course, the Mines Department is not directly concerned with the scientific investigation of this disease, but there has been a Report issued by a Committee of the Privy Council called the Medical Research Council, which gives a full description of what is known of this very formidable disease, and although I must confess that it seems very difficult to know how to contend with it effectively, their main suggestion is that better lighting would probably have a good effect. With that object in view we have been very carefully considering every possible means of improving the luminosity of the lamps used by miners, and where it is possible to use electric lamps we hope they will be introduced, and we trust that an improvement in regard to this disease will speedily ensue. I cannot say myself after reading the Report I have mentioned, that we know all about this disease that will have to be known before we can cure it. I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite will be satisfied with the expenditure which has been incurred in this respect by the Privy Council, and I hope the result will be satisfactory.
Perhaps as I am on the subject of the Medical Research Council I ought to say it keeps in very close touch with my Department on general questions. They have taken up for me the subject of beat hands and beat knees, one of the troubles very common to miners. They have also taken up the question of stone dust in the mines. I have got a small Standing Committee of experts to whom medical questions can be referred. They act as a Committee to whom any particular disease or series of -accidents can be referred, and they inquire as to the best way of combating them. That I think is a step in the right direction. The more we work in harmony with the Medical Research Council the better pleased I shall be. I am very grateful to them for the assistance they have given me so far. The hon. Member also mentioned the question of accidents in metalliferous mines and quarries. That
was a thing which struck me very soon after I went to the Department. I am very glad to say that the Advisory Committee on metalliferous mines, of which the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) is a member, is going very carefully into the question of the best method of improving the regulations and drawing up a new set of regulations to deal with safety in these mines. I am afraid it is too much to say I have any hope of introducing new legislation this year, and indeed I do not think the Committee are in favour of hurrying in this matter. They want to try one or two temporary regulations which we are making in order to see what their effect will be. At any rate, the Committee is moving in the right direction.
Two hon. Members referred to a speech made by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Casey) on the last occasion on which we discussed this question, when he pointed out the number of accidents due to negligence in connection with winding apparatus. At the time the hon. Member made that speech I asked him, to give me instances on which I could base some action with a view to seeing what could be done to help. He has been consulting his union, and I am expecting them to come and have a talk with me about it on Monday next. The hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John) referred to the question of safety appliances, especially in connection with shot- firing. He quoted the gist of a reply I had given to a question on the subject of patent safety appliances. If these did everything that is claimed for them they would be very attractive, but if the Board of Trade is to make compulsory the use of any particular one, we must be absolutely assured that it is a safety appliance. There are some safety appliances which make people feel so secure that they do not take the ordinary precautions, and the result is that one fine day something goes wrong, and more people are killed than would have been if we had not had that safety appliance at all. Although progress in this matter may seem slow to those who believe in some of the appliances, I cannot but feel that long tests are necessary before making their use compulsory and before encouraging them too much. There are two special kinds of shot-firing appliances which are at present undergoing
tests, and, so far as my information goes, the tests have not proved quite as satisfactory as had been hoped. I am not in the least anxious to damp down the ardour of those who invent safety appliances. I shall be glad for them to devote their attention to these matters so long as they will submit their appliances to fair, satisfactory and long tests. Of the accidents that have recently happened in connection with shot-firing, not one would have occurred if the existing regulations had been properly carried out.
I should like if I may to draw the attention of the House to what seems to me a rather important question of figures. In looking through the statistics with regard to accidents it appears to me quite clear that those arising from explosions of fire-damp or coal dust have very considerably decreased, but there again there might be a terrible accident which might upset all our figures. But still it is apparent, I think, that the precautions taken against them must have had a considerable effect. Shaft accidents, too, have been greatly reduced, but when one comes to miscellaneous accidents and haulage accidents—and I am glad the hon. Member has laid such stress on haulage accidents, which are one of the things which have very much disquieted me—it is found that they have not decreased in the same proportion, and I cannot help feeling that that is partly due to the carelessness of individuals. In a list which has recently been got out it was found that the accidents preventable by the action of the individual in coal mines represented 33 per cent. of the total.

Mr. WALSH: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that one-third of the accidents were preventable by the action of the men, and that the remaining two-thirds might have been prevented by the action of the management?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, the percentage of fatal accidents which might have been prevented by action on the part of the management is 8.43.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: Where do these figures come from?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: From the report of the Inspectors. I am quite certain there is no desire on their part to magnify the number of accidents due to the action of the individual. Their desire is, of course,
to stop accidents, but according to my figures, one-third of the accidents are due to the carelessness of the individual and are preventable. In the case of metalliferous mines, the percentage is the same as in the case of the coal mine so far as the action of the men is concerned, while 16 per cent. might have been preventable by the action of the management. In quarries 40 per cent. of the accidents were preventable by the action of the men, and 15 per cent. by the action of the management. These figures lead me to attach very great importance to the principle of "Safety First" laid down by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. J. Robertson). We have been working at that, but we cannot hope for success unless we are supported by hon. Members who represent mining constituencies. As the hon. Member said, it ought to be taught to the very young in school, it ought also to be taught in institutes. We should have pictures illustrating it. I have had a good many designs made. They are not all satisfactory, but some will do, and we shall get an improvement as time goes on.

Mr. WALSH: I want to find out from the right hon. Gentleman if we are to understand that one-third of the haulage accidents are preventable by the action of the men and something over 8 per cent by the action of the management. Are the balance of 59 per cent. not supposed to be preventable?

Mr. BRIOGEMAN: That is what I meant.

Mr. WALSH: The 59 per cent. are not preventable?

6.0 P.M.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Not preventable, in that they are not due to anyone breaking the regulations or rather failing to carry them out. They are preventable in other cases, and possibly if there were better lighting some falls of roof might be foreseen and avoided. When I say preventable, I mean preventable by the ordinary precautions available to the people in the mines. There is another cause of many fatal accidents which could be perfectly well avoided, and that is not resorting to first-aid for minor injuries. I mentioned this on the last occasion when we discussed the question. It is astonishing
what a number of tiny scratches result in death, which could perfectly well be avoided if first-aid had been resorted to immediately the accident, occurred. I read the report of every fatal accident, and I am astonished at the number that could have been prevented in this way. In some cases, when first-aid has been rendered, blood poisoning does ensue, for some reason which I do not understand, but there is a great deal too much of it, and I think a great deal could be done if it were regarded as a duty to resort to first-aid. Of course, it is regarded as a sign of courage to say, "Oh! this is only a scratch, and I will not take any notice of it," but if it were regarded as a duty to have iodine and a bandage put on it at once, I am sure that many fatalities in that direction could be avoided. I hope that this also will be inculcated in the "Safety First" campaign, and I hope that miners will not regard it as teaching their grandmother when they are asked to do these things, but will realise that it is a question of life and death, and that, at any rate, their wives 'and families' happiness and livelihood may depend upon the action they take or neglect to take in such a case.

Mr. LUNN: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what steps have been taken by his Department to encourage the teaching of ambulance work in industrial areas, particularly in mining areas, because I have found that there is a good deal of obstruction?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Safety in Mines Research Board is engaged upon questions of that sort now. I do not think that things are quite satisfactory, and it may be that our Regulations are too difficult to carry out, but I am glad that the hon. Member has mentioned the matter, because I think it requires attention. I was not thinking of the major accidents, but of first-aid in the case of small scratches on fingers, legs and so on. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. J. Guest) made reference to a grievance that suitable timber was not supplied in the quantities that it should be to those at work. I should prefer not to say anything about that now, but to consult the inspectors on the point, and sec whether they can advise me as to the best way of meeting it.
I think I have now referred to all the points that have Been raised, and I would only say, in conclusion, that I welcome any suggestions of the kind that have been made. Such suggestions are very helpful to me in my work, especially when they are put in the moderate manner in which they have been put this afternoon. Nothing has been said that could be offensive to the managers or the owners, and I agree with the hon. Member who spoke last that the majority, I think all of them, are as anxious as anyone else to avoid accidents. Those who have been criticised have been referred to as a nameless small section of the mine-owners or managers. I hope and believe that they are very small, and that Debates of this kind will encourage those who are doing their duty, and who, in my opinion, are by far the largest portion of those engaged in the mining industry.

Mr. ROBERTSON: The figures that I put were questioned. May I refer to them very briefly?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Edwin Cornwall): The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak, but if he only wishes to put a question, I will allow him to do so.

Mr. ROBERTSON: I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he disputed the figures regarding the results of accidents as set forth in divisional statistics? I suppose the statistics issued by the Department are not disputed?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No. There may possibly be errors in them, but I should be the last person to dispute the statistics of my own Department. If, however, I have misquoted them, I am open to correction, and if there is any point with regard to the figures which the hon. Gentleman would like to discuss with the inspectors, I hope he will come to the Department and do so.

Mr. CAIRNS: It is my province now to speak on another matter than accidents, namely, the wage question. As one who has had a large experience in the coal mines—and I do not think any hon. Member of this House has been longer associated with the mines, actually in the pits, than I have—I would say that the economic condition of the coal trade now is worse than it has ever been in my
experience. I remember that in 1876 and 1877 things were bad, and that in 1887 things were bad, but the economic condition of the coal trade to-day is very bad—it is execrable. Coal-mining in this country at the present time is like a blind alley. It leads nowhere, or, if it leads anywhere at all, it is to desolation and starvation. Among the miners of this country there are thousands idle. Wages are low, and not only are wages low, but the purchasing power of the people is at a minimum. It has gone down very largely. We all have to buy at the same shop. Coal miners are willing to work, but they cannot get work. Only a few months ago, for the first time in the history of coal mining —and we have had coal mines in our county since 1348—unemployment insurance has been applied to mines. It is altogether foreign to us to have unemployment benefit. We could save sufficient money ourselves, as members of our Association at 6d. a week or 6d. a fortnight, to put by £200,000 to meet a rainy day, but that is all gone.
In the first place, the miners of this country would like an economic inquiry into the coal trade. The coal trade has many competitors, like oil, water power and electricity. In less than 20 months the miners have suffered a reduction of from 50 to 60 per cent. in wages. I happen to be miners' agent for Northumberland, where we have 56,951 employés. They are all suffering hardship, less or more. During the War we raised 37 battalions to fight, and many of those men are lying out there now. In 1914 our coal getters—the principal men in the pit, the men who work at the face and produce the coal—had 7s. 9d. a day, and at that time the net average selling price of a ton of coal was 8s. 10d. On that price, in 1914, the coalowners could afford to pay them 7s. 9d. a day. Probably the price of best coal would be about 12s. 9d. a ton. Best coal is 24s. 11d. now, according to a statement that I have here. If in 1914, with an average selling price of 8s. 10d., a wage of 7s. 9d. could be paid, what should be paid now, when the average net selling price of a ton of coal is 16s. 11d.? On that basis I say that the wage ought to be 16s. 6d. per day at present. The 9s. 3d. which our coal getters are receiving is higher than in several mining districts, but it is only 19.4 per cent. above the 1914 wage. How
much has the cost of living gone up? It has gone up by 80 per cent., or four-fifths, and yet our wages have only gone up by one-fifth. How can people live?
And what of the lower-paid men, the boys, the young men of 14 to 21 years of age? Boys in our county aged 14 to 15 are getting 2s. 5d. per shift. Boys of 17 to 18 are getting 3s. 7d.; and boys of 19 to 20, 4s. 5d. At the age of 20 to 21—and these are married men; these are men who have to keep up households—they get 4s. 10d. per shift. Then we have those aged 20 to 21 who are on piecework, and they are getting 5s. 5d. per shift. They have houses to keep up and rent to pay. There are men who have been smashed during the War, who have been gassed, suffered from shell-shock, and so on. Supposing they get six days a week, they get about 30s.; and I know of instances where they have had 10s. or 15s. rent per week to pay. I met the Minister of Health only last week in order to get those rents reduced, and I believe he will do it if the Government will allow him. Then we have some piece-workers who are getting something like 7s. 1d. a day—men who have to strip as though they had to fight or to run in a Marathon race. These men have 7s. 1d. a day, and it costs them from 6d. to 1s. 6d. a day for gelignite, dynamite and other mites and nitroglycerine, and it produces neuritis. nystagmus and neurasthenia. Then we have another class of men called subsistence men. When a man's basic wage will not give him a fair subsistence level something has to be taken out of the pool. The Government said they would not establish a pool, but they have established a pool. The lower-paid man has to be subsidised and paid out of the general wages fund. The subsistence men penalise all classes of workers, because if their wages has to be increased it can only come from the profits of the industry, and the profits that pay this are taken from the other men.
Are there no resources that can be tapped? Are there no other people who can pay? Did the Exchequer not get £75,000,000 from us miners during the War—the difference between the inland price and the export price? The export price was £8 a ton and the home price was £2 a ton, and the Government got all the benefit of that. Sir Auckland Geddes
said the Government was getting 36s. a ton from us miners. And has not the Thames Embankment been built out of a shilling a ton tax on coal? Then what about freights? What about railway rates? They are to have £200,000,000, I suppose. It was laid down that they were to have £160,000,000. Then they had to get £99,000,000, now it is said they are to get £200,000,000. It was said the farmers got £200,000,000 profit. I want to read something. I suppose it is correct. I culled it from a book in the Library. If it does not tell the truth it should not be in the Library. It is a big coal company with the annual accounts made up to June each year. In 1910–11 it paid 33⅓ per cent. on the ordinary shares, in 1911–12 it paid 45 per cent., in 1912–13 60 per cent., in 1913.14 30 per cent., 1914–15 13½ per cent. —that was a lean year—in 1915–16 50 per cent., in 1916–17 and 1917–18 40 per cent., and in 1918–19 35 per cent., free of Income Tax. In September, 1919, they paid a bonus of 200 per cent. to the ordinary shareholders out of the undivided profits. Surely, the poor miner ought to have some sympathy, but there is absolutely none. He will not get anything till economic conditions are restored. The coal getters in my county get about 9s. 3d. a day, but every one does not get that, because you have seams of coal which have a heavy gradient, like going up the slates—24 inches to the yard. Then you have bad stone and falls of roof, coming down like sand. A man has a bitter feeling that the stone will come down and he cannot get anything. You may have loose coals, and the water comes in and floods the place, and you cannot get it. All coal hewers are paid by the piece, by the ton, or by the hour. There is the Minimum Wage Act of 1912. Lord Mersey came to Northumberland, and he said a man would have to work every day before he got the minimum, which was then 5s. There is six-sevenths of 50 per cent. on the top of it now. We do not all get it. We may have these bad places. A man may have 4s. 3d. or 5s. or 6s. a day, but he does not get the minimum.
People see these big prices in the papers, but they do not understand the difficulties a man has to encounter. There are abount 17 districts in Great Britain. The wages for Cumberland are 8s. 3d., and they are at the minimum. Their minimum is about 30 per cent. on
6s. 4d The Forest of Dean is a lean district—7s. 5d. a day. Our district is 9s. 3d That is for the best men. In the year 1912 the profits of the coal mines were £15,000,000; in 1913, £22,000,000; in 1914, £15,000,000; in 1915, £21,000,000; in 1916, £37,000,000, in 1917, £27,000,000; in 1913, £29,000,000; in 1919, £30,000,000; in 1920, £35,000,000 See the fluctuations. I blame the Government for decontrol. I blame the Government for trying their level best to kill the coal trade. When submarines and mercantile ships came to Scotland, on the Tyne, Leith, Hull, Grimsby, all over the country, and they could not get any coals, coals were being stacked on Salisbury Plain and at all the railway stations thinking we were going to strike. We never intended to strike. I represent the bravest class in this country bar none. I speak with great respect of military men and admirals. I know the case of a man who went three times into a pit and saved a man's life and fell under the gas himself. This is set down as the bravest deed of the year 1921 He has a medal for the bravest deed of the year with a certificate to that effect, and his name is placed on the Royal Humane Society's Roll of Heroes. Surely we deserve something better than this for all the sacrifices we have made. There is not one of us who has been a miner, as I have been, but has some mark. I cannot straighten my hand out. I have my feelings the same as anyone else here. If I had had my chance I should be as intelligent as they, What about the sacrifices in the mine, and the men who are killed every year? I hope the Government in their wisdom will take this, probably the last opportunity they will have, and subsidise the mines and give us some of the money they have got. The right hon. Gentleman smiles. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer has less expense than he anticipated. That means that he is saving money. I hope their best friends will get some of it.

Mr. PENRY WILLIAMS: I should like to approach this question from a different point of view. I should like to look at it from the point of view of the large consumer of fuel who is to-day suffering from a price so high that he is entirely unable to re-start his industry. It is very difficult to ascertain the cause of the high price of coal. If you talk to the hon. Member behind me, who has so much
experience and has spoken with so much eloquence, he will tell you—I believe with very great truth—that it is not on account of the high wages which are paid to the miner. That is confirmed by the reports one gets nearly every day from those who are engaged about the pits. Wages to-day are not very much in excess of pre-War. If you talk to the coal-owner, on the other hand, he will tell you—and I believe with some truth—that the high price is not on account of the high profit which the coalowner is extracting from the industry, and if you look at any colliery balance-sheet to-day you will find that they compare very badly with pre-War balance-sheets. I do not think the hon. Member (Mr. Cairns) would suggest that the figure he gave with regard to colliery profits was in any way an average profit even pre-War. It is not really quite fair to take either the best or the worst colliery and quote it as an instance of either good or bad fortune for the coalowner. They should be taken as an average profit. There are collieries which have no difficulties at all, and which make very large profits. On the other hand, there are collieries which during a long term of years have been a disastrous failure to those who have embarked their capital in them. I represent a district which lies between two sections of the mining community. We are dependent for our livelihood in Middlesbrough on two factors. One is cheap coal from the Durham coalfields, and the other cheap ironstone from the Cleveland ironstone fields. Both these industries are under the control of the Mines Department.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Not the control.

Mr. WILLIAMS: They are under the supervision of the Mines Department. Ironstone comes within the scope of the Mines Act. Before the War, we got coke for smelting purposes at about 16s. to 17s. per ton, and we were getting ironstone at a comparatively cheap price, which enabled the iron maker to sell his iron at about 50s. to 60s. per ton. To-day, instead of getting coke at 16s. per ton, the price is 27s. a ton, and the price of ironstone has correspondingly increased, until you have the price of iron very nearly double, in the neighbourhood of 100s. per ton. That cost is so high that it is preventing the iron trade getting on to its feet again, and those
who know the iron trade, know quite well that, owing to the high cost of these two minerals, we are unable to reduce our price in competition with foreign countries, and are unable to re-start our industry. The price of coal is very nearly double what it was before the War. Where has the difference gone? The miners have not got it, so they say. The coalowners have not got it, so they say. [An HON. MEMBER: "Watered capital!"] It cannot be watered capital. We are dealing with costs. We are not dealing with the return on capital. If we were dealing with average profits there would be some point in the interruption of my hon. Friend. We are now dealing with the cost of production, and the cost of production to-day is the difference (between about Vs. pre-War and about 16s. to 17s. to-day.
It is very difficult for the consumer of fuel to ascertain or to form any opinion as to where the difference has gone between pre-War costs and present costs. It is a subject on which the Department of Mines ought to give us some information. In an ordinary industrial concern, when you have an excessively high cost, a cost which you believe is higher than it ought to be, you set to work and analyse it, item by item. You find out what your wages cost you and what they cost you pre-War, or in whatever period you are comparing with your present cost. You analyse your stores, your railway rates, and every factor that operates to make up your total cost, and if you do that in the coal industry you will find exactly where the extra cost goes. I asked the Secretary for Mines some questions the other day, and as a result correspondence has reached me. Among the causes that are blamed for the increased cost of fuel is that of railway charges. I cannot think that the increased railway charges are entirely responsible for the great increase in price. The railway rate from the coalfields in Durham to the iron-smelting industry in Middlesbrough is very nearly doubled. It is the difference between 2s. 3d. pre-War and 4s. or 4s. 3d. to-day. I had a letter from a man in the Yorkshire coalfield, and, amongst other information which he gave me. he gave me a glimmering of the true cause of the increased cost—a remark which fell from one hon. Member earlier to-day gave an indication in the same direction—and that
was the larger proportion of men who are now engaged about the pit who are non-producers. The number of these men who are now employed about the pits is largely in excess of what it, was pre-War. It is very difficult for one who is not connected with a colliery undertaking in any way to arrive at a true conclusion upon this matter. One is dependent almost entirely upon the information which one can get from one's friends who have actual experience; but the Mines Department must have the full particulars, and be able to tell us exactly where the increased items of cost arise. It would be a very valuable thing if we had an inquiry such as Was asked for by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Cairns), in order that we may see exactly where the difference arises.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Does the hon. Member mean the cost to the consumer, or the cost at the pit head?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The inquiry which I think should be instituted by the Mines Department should be to ascertain how-it is that the cost of coal at the pit head or to the consumer is very nearly doubled, while the miners' wages have only increased a very small percentage, and the profit of the coal owner, according to his statement, has decreased. You have nearly 100 per cent. increase in the cost of coal, and nobody has got it, as far as I can see. Where has it gone? It is strangling our industry, and it is preventing us getting our costs down in order that we may meet foreign competition.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Does the hon. Member suggest an inquiry into other industries, or only into the coal industry?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman could get, as Government Departments can get, any information which he requires from the the iron industry. Whenever a Government Department has asked the Cleveland Ironmasters;' Association for any information in regard to costs, or anything else, that information has been placed at their disposal. It is quite obvious that any information which is given can only be treated, in the average, with other information received. It would not be fair to quote any specific instances of cost on figures which were supplied in confidence to the Department. Here you
have, in the coal industry, a national industry. The very life of the nation is dependent upon cheap coal, and there is no doubt that the cost of coal to-day is double, while everybody denies that they are getting any increased advantage by the increased price of coal. It is a situation which is puzzling the whole industry. It is quite clear that, unless we can get the cost of our fuel down, our industries will languish, and we shall not be able to restart them, and we shall have continued unemployment and misery.
I am not urging that we should have cheap fuel at the expense of the living wage to the miner. Pre-War he had Vs. 10d. a day. That is a fair living wage, it is not a starvation wage, although it may not be a satisfactory wage. Then you had the cost of coal at about 8s. or 9s. Today you have a very small increased wage for the miner, very heavy increased cost of living for him, and at the same time you have an increase of nearly 100 per cent. in the cost of coal. I do not think that the Secretary for Mines is giving the consideration that he ought to give to the request of my hon. Friend for an inquiry. It is a matter of vital importance to the whole of the industries concerned. We in the iron industry do not want cheap coal at the expense of the safety of the miner. The safety of the miner is a fair charge on the coal before it comes to us. I am not asking for that in any way, but I am asking that we should have some explanation as to how it is that pre-War we could get fuel at a price which enabled us to compete with our foreign competitors, and at that time the miner could get a fair living wage, and why to-day we have an increase of 100 per cent. in the cost of fuel the miner cannot get a living wage, the owner cannot get a decent profit, so he says, and industry cannot be restarted. We are entitled to some statement from the Secretary for Mines as to how this position of affairs has arisen, and I hope he will give it.

Mr. GOULD: The remarks of the last speaker on the subject of prices and costs, on reflection, would not require very much explanation. My hon. Friend dealt with the question of costs by comparing the pit-head prices and wages with the relative cost in 1913, when the pit-head price was 11s. 1½d. per ton, whereas for the
month of April last the price at the pit head was 18s. 7½d. per ton, or an increase approximately of 70 per cent.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Is the hon. Member referring to South Wales, or to the whole coalfields?

Mr. GOULD: The whole industry. It must be borne in mind that in 1913 there were 100,000 fewer men in the industry than to-day. Moreover, the number of men who were actually producing in 1913 was considerably in excess, proportionately, than the number producing in 1921–22. All charges, other than wages, have materially increased, approximately 140 per cent., and over that neither the coalowners nor the miners have any control at all. There is not the slightest shadow of doubt that the industry as a whole to-day cannot possibly afford to pay any greater wage than it is paying. For the month of April last, the last complete month, there is a loss of £26,000. Much as I hate to say it, I am convinced that the months of May, June and July, and possibly August, will show a greater deficit than the month of April. It. must be so because of the lack of demand which occurs in the summer months, but the loss does not fall upon the miners themselves, it falls upon the industry. In South Wales alone the loss which has been borne by the industry since last July was £615,000 at the end of May, and it must occur to anybody that there can be no assumption whatsoever that that loss is fictitious.
With regard to the criticism of the statement made by the owners that they cannot afford to pay an increased wage, that they are simply making the statement in order to depress wages one cannot possibly feel anything but great sympathy with those who, we know, are getting to-day a wage which is not a fair wage and which represents a sacrifice which the coal industry has made to the other industries of the country and which has not been requited. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. P. Williams) referred to the question of the steel industries of the country. We know that those industries which are situated in the heart of the coalfield are paying from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. more for their coal than in 1914. Those industries which have to haul their coal a distance are paying anything from 70 per cent. to 100 per cent. in excess, and it must be remembered
that it takes from 2½ to 3 tons of coal to make a ton of steel, and as long as we have this increased cost of coal so long will there be that period of depression in the iron and steel industry to which he referred.
The hon. Member referred to the question of a desire and need for an inquiry. What shall we inquire into? I have heard it said that the Minister for Mines should authorise an inquiry into the reasons why the consumer is paying so much for the coal, why the miners' wages are so low, and why the colliery companies are losing money. There are two points only on which I can see ground for inquiry. One is an inquiry into the cost and effect of the 7-hour day, and the second is into the increase of charges other than wages. That involves an inquiry into railway rates. In South Wales alone the cost of transportation, railway rates and dock charges, is nearly 6s. a ton as compared with 2s. 6d. before the War. We have only a margin of 1s. per ton in competition with other countries in the markets of the world, and, since we increased the cost of our coal for export in the month of March, the falling off in demand has been extraordinary, and to-day, while I know my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn), with whom I have had many friendly discussion in attempting to find some solution of the difficulty, think that we are giving the coal away, it is true that because of the glut and the lack of demand prices for export have been forced to a lower level than we desire to sell the coal at, if we are going to be able to keep the men working at all. That is our difficulty. We cannot maintain high prices for export and close the markets against us without necessarily throwing the men out of employment.
I am going to anticipate, if I may, certain criticisms which I believe will be levelled against the Mines Department in the course of the Debate. We have had a certain amount of trouble and some threats in South Wales. Probably the House will remember that only a few weeks ago there was an announcement that the South Wales Miners' Federation have decided, in conference, to call their men out, and notice has been given for 14th July. The matter is one which has given us naturally a certain amount of
consideration. We cannot possibly regard the action of the Federation without being somewhat apprehensive as to the consequences. The reasons which have been given to us for the action of the Federation are that the owners are not assisting the Federation in any way to force the men to join the miners' unions.
Let us look at the facts. The owners have never taken any part at any time, except possibly in some districts in Lancashire, in assisting the unions to complete their membership by asking the men to join the unions. The South Wales Miners' Federation is a body which comprises a very large section of those men who are employed in the coal mines. A very large number are non-unionists. They have gone out for reasons which I think have been discussed at other times in this House, very largely because of their inability and lack of desire to continue their payments to the union. There is no desire whatever on the part of the mineowner to break up the union. The principle of collective bargaining is a principle which has helped to a considerable extent to develop the industry of this country, and if that principle is once destroyed, then we shall have certainly back the old conditions, with continuous trouble, and we shall never be able to get an agreement which would be satisfactory over a big area such as South Wales. We cannot possibly be expected to interfere in a matter which is one for the miners themselves. This question of the Federation is not a question for the owners. The owners have no more right to insist that every man shall be a member of the Miners' Federation than the miners have a right to insist that every owner shall be a member of the Mine-owners' Association.
Not only that. Do the Miners' Federation think for one moment, in view of the records since 1914–15 when the mines came under control, and that in the period from 1915 to 1921 there were no fewer than some 000 strikes, while at that period the Coal Department endeavoured by every means in its power, in order to avoid disputes in the coalfield, to force every man to join the union, that the mine-owners can comply with that request? Can the mineowners in any circumstances expect that they are going to have peace in the coalfield if every man is a member of the Miners' Federation, when
Rule 3b of the South Wales and Mon-mouthshire Miners' Federation reads:
Object: To secure the entire organisation of workers employed in and about collieries in the South Wales and Monmouthshire coalfields with a view to the complete abolition of capitalism, and membership of the Federation shall be a condition of employment.
That is one of the reasons why we are going to have a strike. The issue is that every miner must be a member of the Federation in the first place, and in the second, that he must be pledged, once he joins the Federation, to bring about the complete abolition of the system of private ownership. On that ground and for that reason, which is a natural one, we cannot be expected, especially when we have had so much trouble, to agree to force every man to join the union. Again, statements as to victimisation have been made, and that is another reason why the miners propose to come out. Those matters have been gone into fairly carefully, and it is just as well that the position should be clearly understood.
Under the terms of the national settlement it was agreed that all men should be entitled to return to their places as soon as their places became available. It is obvious at once that all men have not got places. It is also obvious that in South Wales alone there are 50,000 more men in the industry than there were before the War, and 100,000 more men in the industry throughout the country, and during the War conditions crept in, as we all know, which made the economic working of the mines; practically impossible. At the very moment decontrol came into effect, and the responsibility for the entire management of the mines was thrust, as it has been now, on the owners and the miners, in so far as they share the profits of the industry, it became essential that the redundant miners should be eliminated wherever possible. That is a fact which has to be considered in the interest of every industry in this country.
In Clause 13 of the national settlement it was agreed that, where it was not possible for the men to return to their places immediately, they should resume work in the order of seniority whenever the places were available for the men to go to work. That has been put into application generally. As far as possible it has been the practice of mineowners throughout the country to adhere to that principle as care-
fully as they can. But unfortunately in many cases it has led to a considerable amount of trouble, and charges have been made that from time to time men have been deliberately excluded from employment because they took part in agitations and the trouble in the years from 1918 to 1921. That has not been the rule or the policy of the owners. I am not going to say for one moment that there have not been individuals. I do not believe that there have not been individuals, who have not borne in mind, in particular employments, the troublesome nature of some particular workmen, and probably in many cases it is true that men have been excluded from employment. I do not believe in any circumstances that it is possible for the whole of the managers of the collieries to be any move perfect than it is for the men themselves to be absolutely perfect, and that may have happened in isolated cases.
What has been the result? A great many stoppages have taken place since 14th July, 1920, and in many cases where the agreements have been broken we found that the pits have been closed down because of the lack of ability of the companies to carry on, and sometimes they could not be operated except at a very heavy loss, and it has been in some cases possible to arrive at a rate which enables the colliery to work at a profit as far as possible but certainly not at a loss greater than the loss which would have occurred if the pit had been closed. But it unfortunately happens that a great cry has been made of victimisation, and when we come to investigate it at the present moment, the House, I suppose, has noticed that only the day before yesterday there was a meeting at Cardiff of the Joint Standing Disputes Committee, at which it was agreed that a small Sub-Committee should be appointed to go into the whole of the cases outstanding. The owners asked how many cases were outstanding. The whole list comprises ten disputes. Naturally, a certain amount of surprise was expressed that there were only ten. Then it was alleged that there were many other cases and that the ten were only samples.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Hear, hear!

7.0 P.M.

Mr. GOULD: My hon. Friend says "Hear, hear !" He believes there were many other cases. If there were many
other cases, it is an extraordinary thing that they have not been reported, because the Joint Standing Disputes Committee would naturally hear of them, and in the regular course of things they would come before that Committee and be registered as outstanding cases. Let us analyse these particular cases. Six are cases of alleged victimisation, one of which has never been referred to the Committee at all. One is a case where, for the purpose of economy, a company revised its method of working and the workmen referred to were not required. It was a case of removing redundant miners. Another is a case where a certain seam had been stopped and the men concerned were temporarily rendered idle. They claimed priority of employment in other seams belonging to the same company, where men are being put on who formerly did not work for the company. I am authorised to say that there is no defence of that. But this fact must be borne in mind—that in that particular case the loss was so heavy that it was impossible to carry on. The agreement which was reached in June of 1920 as to the base rate could not be revised or gone into again, and the only alternative was to close the pit. The position at that pit is that if the men's representatives and the owner's representatives could get together and could agree to adjust a rate at which the pit can be worked, it will be reopened, notwithstanding the fact that an agreement. has been entered into which for the time being cannot be modified. It seems to me that an agreement that cannot be modified is not a business-like agreement, especially when the result is the loss of coal to the industry and the loss of employment to the men.
Another point to which expression will undoubtedly be given is the demand for 60 per cent. above the standard, instead of 20 per cent. as at the present time. The position in the industry now is this: We have lost £1,625,000 up to the end of May, and there is a bigger loss to come for the three months to follow. We are only just able to maintain our market with prices as they are. How could we maintain our market with an increase of from 5s. to 7s. on the cost of every ton of coal produced? We cannot possibly get away from that position. It would
cost from 5s. to 7s. per ton to get that extra 40 per cent. The argument is that the consumer can afford to pay. Obviously the demand from industry in this country to-day is steadily falling off, because of the general slackness of trade and the general depression, and because we have now the summer months with us. With regard to industry, which is one of the biggest consumers, how is it possible for us to stimulate the demand and help other people out of work if we increase the cost of coal by 5s. to 7s. a ton? It certainly cannot be done.
There is another claim, and it is that we can assist the miners by increasing the export price of coal. I have gone into that rather carefully, and I find that we have to-day a margin of less than 1s. a ton in competition for general business. I ask the Secretary for Mines to bear one thing in mind. We are very much concerned about the action of the Dutch Government in purchasing reparation coal from Germany. I understand that under the Reparation Clauses of the Treaty reparation coal cannot be sold to neutral countries. If that is true, and if that is being done, there is very good reason why we should take drastic action at once to see that the Treaty is properly carried out. I have already mentioned the necessity, if there is to be an inquiry, of considering the most important thing of all the working of the seven-hours day, its cost to the industry, and its effect on the raning situation in general. We have to-day a million miners producing just:20,000,000 tons of coal with a seven-hears day. That has added 2s. 2d. per top to the cost of production. It has been of no benefit to the miner, because it has decreased his wages. It has decroased the demand for commodities throughou the country, and it has had the effect on every other industry of lowering aroduction. With normal and healthy conditions and a revision of the working hours, we should undoubtedly be brought to the position in which, with 850.000 men. We could produce 350.000,000 tens of coal, with increased wages for everyone concerned. There is another point. One of my hon. Friends, on the occasion of the last Debate, said that I was not correct when I stated that an addition to the wages of married men with families had been offered, in order to bring their wages more nearly to a level with the cost of
living. That definitely was offered, but it was refused because it could not be given also to unmarried men without family responsibilities.
I will say one or two things having a more general bearing on the coal industry. It is impossible for us to expect any revival in the coal industry until we first of all make up our minds to give careful consideration to the effect of railway rates on the trade and industry of the country. It is no use for us to go along regardless of the fact that in securing to the railway companies the right of earning what they are earning in the shape of dividends we are seriously penalising not only the mining industry but every other industry and the finances of the nation as a whole. We have endeavoured by every means in our power to get the railway companies to reduce dock rates in South Wales. Small reductions of a few pence per ton have been made, but nothing at all commensurate with the increases put on from time to time, and at present we find ourselves faced with general charges which approximately are from 100 to 150 per cent. over the pre-War rates. Such a condition of things must naturally affect not only our export trade but every other industry in the country. It seems to me that in so far as the miners and the coalowners have made, are making, and will probably have to make for some time considerable sacrifices, and reserves are being depleted and money taken out of the industry which should be left in the industry for development and the opening up of new seams and the employment of more men for increasing output and for meeting the claim put forward to-day for more safety appliances and more research work—all that money is being dissipated and removed from the industry and the workers are the sufferers. I quite agree that in the attempt to reduce railway rates, if the benefit of reductions is given to the foreign buyer it will be a great mistake. If there are to be reductions in railway charges the benefit should be given first to those most directly concerned, to our own industries.
I can not understand the attitude and the indifference of the Government on this question. It is more than any other thing responsible for the position in which we find ourselves in the coal industry to-day. I have no doubt that if the miners and the coalowners were
convinced that it was possible to secure an immediate reduction, there would be at once a very notable revival, in the export trade in particular. And not only the export trade. We should find the cost of coal for our industry coming down. One of the South Wales leaders said that the proper thing for the rail-waymen to consider was the effect of their agreement upon the wages and the livelihood of every other section of the community. I know there is an agreement in existence. But there is no reason on earth why that should not be, if not revised, at least modified or operated in such a way as considerably to bring down prices. The right of the railway companies to earn their pre-War dividends is something which to-day is having a tremendously adverse effect on industry. I assure the hon. Members on the Labour Benches that there is every desire on the part of those who are concerned with them for the immediate prosperity of the industry—a desire not to fight with them, but to endeavour, as far as possible, to meet them without strikes and without agitation. We are jointly concerned in the prosperity of the industry. We have everything at stake. We know that they have a right and just cause for grievance, and that the wages they are earning are far less than those to which they are entitled. But we also know that there are other grievances in the industry and other causes for the low wages which they and they alone can help to remedy. We cannot by legislation and by conference help in remedying the evils which are within the Federation. They alone can do that. As far as co-operation and sympathy—practical sympathy and not lip sympathy—are concerned, as far as consultation is concerned, I am sure the inincowners and the Mining Association are perfectly willing to do everything in their power to meet the wishes and demands of the other side. After all is said and done, they recognise that unless the two bodies are working in harmony there can only be misery for the one and bankruptcy for the other.

Mr. HARTSHORN: I would not have risen to take part in the Debate but for the fact that the hon. Member who has just spoken made some references to decisions which have been reached in the Welsh coalfields. He says we have decided to send notices to terminate contracts in that coalfield on the grounds of
non-unionism and victimisation. He also made reference to a demand being put forward for an increased wages rate. My hon. Friend, when he talks of industry, speaks as one having authority, and everybody in this House recognises that he has great business ability; but when he talks about the decisions reached by the miners and the motives which prompt them, and what takes place between the miners and the mine owners, I cannot help thinking he is going a little bit outside the walks in which he is usually so well informed. I do not think he ever attended a meeting at which matters were discussed between the miners and the mine owners. I do not think he has anything invested in the mining industry. He is being coached by the owners and, unfortunately for him, he is not being given on all occasions reliable information. I am not complaining of any statement he has made, but clearly a man who is not behind the scenes, who does not know what is actually taking place, and who merely gets ex parte statements, is liable, while making a real attempt to put the matter honestly before the House, to make misleading statements.
With reference to the non-union question, we are asking no more of the coal-owners than has been in operation for six years in the Welsh coalfield, prior to the last stoppage. We had an arrangement with them which prevented for six years a single main stoppage on the non-union issue. There never was a complaint made by any workman in the Welsh coalfield that under that arrangement it was necessary for the coalowners to exert any undue pressure. As far as that issue was concerned, there was no cause for complaint on either side and we had everything that was to be desired. As soon as that stoppage came to an end and the workmen resumed work, the Coalowners' Association held their meetings and decided to go back on all arrangements which had existed on this subject for the past six years, and even went back upon arrangements in existence prior to the War which had obtained there for the last 20 years. It is all very well talking about a disposition to co-operate with the miners, but the real fact of the situation is this, that for years past the miners have had the whip hand and to an extent they used it: the other side has got it to-day, and
they are using it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] It is no use saying "No, no!" There is no getting away from the fact that a system of tyranny has been imported into the mining industry since that last stoppage, which is more intense and severe than anything which the mining community has ever known. If the mineowners are prepared in South Wales to continue the arrangement which has been in existence for the last six years, and against which there has not been a single complaint us far as we are concerned, we have no further trouble on the non-union question.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the victimisation of workmen, and said that he had caused one ease to be investigated. In relation to it, he says there is no defence for the company, as far as the agreement is concerned, but he says certain things have to be borne in mind, among them that the company could not afford to work the colliery, and that they had had to stop it because of the great loss. As a matter of fact, the colliery was not stopped at all: it is still working. What has happened is that one seam has been stopped and the men in that seam rendered idle. If a colliery company cannot work a seam of coal, we make no complaint about the men getting notice to terminate their contracts and being rendered idle, but what we do say is that, having closed down the colliery, not on grounds of any dispute, they are not then entitled to employ strangers who have never worked at that colliery, and to keep idle all the men they had in that seam, hoping by the weapon of starvation to compel those men to accept terms which they cannot enforce under the agreement. That is our complaint against the coal owners.

Mr, GOULD: I admitted there was no justification for that I admitted that on this particular case there was no defence.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Very well. All I can say is that since the matter has been investigated, all the eases we have are on a par with that.

Mr. GOULD: No, no.

Mr. HARTSHORN: My hon. Friend says these matters should be referred to the Disputes Committee. Every ease has
been referred to the Disputes Committee. This case, to which I am referring, has been before the Disputes Committee more than once, and more than twice. We have had the matter discussed and threshed out and the colliery manager simply says, "I am not going to reemploy these men until I think fit." The rest of the men in the Welsh coalfield say, "Very well, if the Coalowners' Association will not exert such influence as they have to compel that colliery company to do what is right, then we shall have to take the matter into our own hands and exert such pressure as we can." The hon. Gentleman says there are only ten cases. I do not know the exact number of men concerned in each case, but ten cases may be a very serious matter. It may be that there are a couple of hundred men involved in the one case we are talking about, and it is a very serious thing when it is multiplied all over the coalfield. My hon. Friend says he can say with authority that the coalowners are anxious to co-operate, not merely by word of mouth, but in actual practice. I can assure him of this, there is not a leader of the Welsh miners, and, as far as I know, not a miner in Wales, anxious to have another stoppage at the present time, and it is certain, if we can get anything like a decent attitude adopted by the coalowners, that attitude will be very fully reciprocated by the miners in a real genuine endeavour to get these matters fixed up. I now come to the question of the seven-hours day. The hon. Gentleman said we are now getting 220,000,000 tons per annum. Docs that mean total output?

Mr. GOULD: Total output,

Mr. HARTSHORN: After all, you cannon make comparisons with the output from the mining industry to-day, with the almost complete paralysis in other industries resulting in so many of our men being idle. It is all very well to talk about the output per annum, but what about the output per man shift. It is the test, and it is a test which cannot be disputed, and the Secretary for Mines can endorse or deny what I am saying when I state that in the Welsh coalfield to-day the men are producing more coal per man shift under the seven hours day than under the old eight hours day. That is a fact which cannot be disputed, and in face of that, it is all moonshine to
talk about one of the matters that should be inquired into being the effect of the sever-hour day upon the cost of production. On the question of railway rates, as far as the miners are concerned, we are not interested in a reduction of railway rates. That may seem a strange thing for me to say, but up to now all that has resulted from such concessions as the railways have made to the owners has been a reduction of prices to the foreigners in the coal sold to them—areduction even greater than the concessions —and this has placed the mining industry and the miners in a worse position than before I have no hesitation in saying that with the cut.-throat competition which is going on with the coalowners to-day, whatever concession is made by the railways will be given to the foreigner as soon as the concession is made.
As a matter of fact, taking two months since the last stoppage, we have had a difference in output as between those two months of 1,300,000 tons in the Welsh coalfield, and all the increased revenue that came to the industry was £3,000 for 1,300,000 tons increase, so that the increase was disposed of at less than a halfpenny per ton when you spread the average over all the output. As long as we have got the conditions which exist in the Welsh coalfield to-day, where a couple of big colliery owners can produce coal 4s. a ton cheaper than all the others, and can quote with the knowledge that their wages cost will be based on 20 per cent. above pre-War wages, they will quote such prices as will enable them to make a slight profit, and all the others can go to the dogs as far as they are concerned. That is what is taking place in the mining industry to-day. I understand complaints are made about the miners asking for GO per cent. above pre-War wages. Is that an extravagant demand to make? In all conscience, the miners had a sufficiently poor wage in pre-War days and a sufficiently low standard of living. If we get 60 per cent. above pre-War wages, that has to be put beside a cost of living at least 80 per cent. above the pre-War figure. We miners would be making a very substantial concession and a very substantial sacrifice by having a 60 per cent. increase of wages side by side with an 80 per cent. increase in the standard of living.
The miners say, and they are entitled to say, that they are engaged in a very
arduous and very hazardous occupation They are entitled to lead a civilised existence. They are rendering to the community very great, useful, and, indeed, indispensable service. We say we do not care whether the consumer of our coal is a Britisher or a foreigner, or whether the Britisher is an employer or a workman, he is not entitled to say to the miner, "You must supply me with my needs in the matter of coal" without at the same time saying, "We will give you in return three meals a day without any anxiety as to where they are coming from." I do not. think there is a body of men in this country to-day in so unfortunate a position as the miners. I was talking to a doctor the other day, and though they do not usually say what they see in the homes they visit, this doctor told me only last Saturday in my own district, in relation to men whom I represent, as miners' agent and as Member of Parliament. He said, "I went into two colliers' homes yesterday, and they were sitting at table with their hands washed to their wrists and having their dinner. One of them was having bread and butter and tea, and the other had dry bread and tea, with no milk in, and that is all that was on the table." That is the condition of a very large mass of the mining population in this country to-day, right through England, Wales, and Scotland. It has been going on for so long that they are becoming ragged. They have nothing to spare for clothes, and they cannot replace what is worn out.
While I realise that trade is in a very serious position, I say it is not fair to ask the miners to bear all the brunt of it and to carry the burden of all the industries that are doing badly. If, by reducing the price of coal, or by asking the miners even to go on with their present state of starvation, we were setting the wheels of industry in motion, I should be prepared to say to the miners to agree to pay almost any price to get prosperity restored, but we are not getting it done. We are supplying to the Government first-class Admiralty coal at 24s. a ton f.o.b., and it is a standing scandal that the miners have to live such a life as they are living, while they are being fleeced by the Government in this great supply of Admiralty coal. That is one of the things that the Secretary for Mines ought to see is remedied at the
earliest possible moment. Take the case of the railways. Why should the miners and the mineowners be called upon to supply the railways with coal at pounds a ton cheaper than it was prior to the last stoppage, a couple of pounds a ton cheaper? That is not coming down to the community or to the consumer; it is not percolating through to the ordinary citizen. It is simply that we are leaving profits among the railways that rightly belong to the miners. but what is happening? If the Welsh coalowners will not supply, the supply being in excess of the demand all over the country, English and Scotch coalowners will supply, and they are in competition one with the other and driving down these prices, with the simple result that the miners have a standard of living such as the oldest man in this House has never known them to have before.
Personally, I should be very pleased if I could think that anything useful would result from this Debate, but unfortunately the Secretary for Mines has no power to interfere or to do anything. Such powers as the Ministry had were taken from them, and it is because there is no sort of control or power to interfere that we have got into the medley that we are in to-day. The hon. Member for Central Cardiff gave us as one of the reasons why the owners could not have any arrangement with us that the main object of our Federation was to abolish capitalism. If capitalism wants to defend itself and justify its existence, it is about time we got better results from its working than we have in the mining industry at any rate. As far as we are concerned, we certainly have not the least desire to create further friction or trouble or difficulties, but we say to the Government, we say to the other industries, and we say to the general public that we have rights and that we are entitled to a decent; standard of existence. If that is recognised and provision made for anything like a decent wage, I think it will be found that the miners will be quite prepared to do their share and to make their share of sacrifice, but I do not think that anything this House or the Government or the coal-owners or anybody can say will prevent further trouble at no distant date unless there is an improvement in the conditions under which the miners have been working for so long.

Sir GEORGE RENWICK: There are OIK; or two points in the speech of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) to which I should like to refer. He speaks about South Walcs. I know a little about South Wales, but I know more about Northumberland and Durham, and I would like to remind the hon. Member that South Wales does not represent the whole of the coalfields of this country. He said that since the War there had been a system of tyranny by which the coalowners were doing their utmost to grind down the miners. That may have been so in certain districts with which he is acquainted, but I feel absolutely certain that it is not the case in either Northumberland or Durham. If it is, let any representative from those counties get up and say so. We in Northumberland and Durham are doing our utmost to work in harmony with the miners, and we recognise—and nobody recognises more clearly—that the wages at the present time are at a very low rate, but I am thankful to say that, at any rate in Northumberland and to a lesser extent in Durham, the miners as a whole are working practically full time. There is a fairly good demand at present from abroad, and the remarkable thing is this, that our best customer at the present time is Germany. Germany is taking a very large quantity of North Country coal, and is asking for more, and paying full market price for it. It is rather a remarkable thing that that should be so, but at the present time it is so.
The next point to which I would like to call attention is (he mischievous statement that the hon. Member for Ogmore has made that the miners do not want any reduction in railway rates. The miners do want a reduction in railway rates, and so do the mineowners, and as long as we have to pay such exorbitant rates for the carriage of coal we shall be heavily handicapped. I am surprised that the hon. Member should have made such a statement. Surely he does not mean it. We find not only miners, but mineowners, iron masters, and manufacturers generally throughout the country continually asking for a reduction of the railway rates upon coal. It is absolutely necessary that we should have cheap coal to revive our industries, and I have sufficient sympathy with the miners to hope that that reduction in the railway rates
will not be got by asking the miner- to suffer further reductions in wages. Their wages are quite low enough, and I sincerely hope that, if we are going to get a reduction in the railway rates, it will not be at the expense of the miners. The hon. Member for Ogmore mentioned that the Admiralty were buying best Admiralty coal at 24s. a ton. I do not think they are getting it at 24s. at the present time, because the export price for best South Wales coal is considerably more at the present moment. It is 27 s. or 28s., and I cannot imagine that they are giving that coal to the Admiralty at 24s., but when the hon. Member was on the subject of the Admiralty he might have asked the representative of the Government how it is that at the present time the Admiralty is taking only about half-a-million tons of coal per annum for the Navy, as compared with 1½ or two million tons before the War. The reason is, of course, that ships are being fitted with oil machinery instead of coal machinery, with this result, that while the coalowners are not able to make a profit, yet those who have commanded the oil are making a huge profit.
I offer the suggestion to the Secretary for Mines that he should represent to the Admiralty that it might be advisable, in peace time, when it is not so absolutely necessary that we should have the great speed that we get in war, or even that we should have the lack of smoke which they claim for oil burning, hut which is not always brought about, because I have seen great volumes of smoke coming from oil-burning ships, the Admiralty might adopt what has been adopted by many merchant ships, and that is a system of having machinery fitted so that they ran burn both coal and oil fuel, as they wish. Oil is very expensive. It is all right, perhaps, for great Atlantic liners sailing from Liverpool and plying between there and New York on rapid services, hut for ships of the Navy, going all round the world, it is much cheaper to get coal than oil. Coal can be stored in old wooden or iron huts, hut oil cannot. Oil has to be put in extremely well-built vessels or tanks, otherwise we have it spread over the ocean, about which we have heard so much lately. As I said, I sincerely hope that some hon. Memher representing a constituency in Northumberland or Durham will have the courage to get up
and say that, whatever may be the case in South Wales, it is not the case in Northumberland and Durham that masters are exercising tyranny as against the miners.

Mr. LAWSON: I did get up on the occasion of the last Debate, and I did not give altogether an unqualified approval of the line taken by the hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Sir G. Renwick) in regard to the attitude of a good many of the owners.

Sir G. RENWICK: That is not a system of tyranny such as that to which the hon. Member for Ogmore referred. No doubt, in times like this, the coalowner, like other manufacturers, does his best to economise, partly by reducing wages, but I know absolutely that there is no system of tyranny on the part of the coalowners of my district, and I am sorry such a statement should have been made in this Committee. It is likely only to cause unrest and to disturb the harmony which I am quite certain exists at present between the coalowners and miners, both of whom are doing their best, the one by increasing output and the other by finding markets for the coal. I am not a prophet, but I venture, to think that at the end of this year we shall find a steady and improved demand for coal, and while you may not see a great rise in prices, I think there will be a stiffening, and I sincerely hope that the miners will at any rate benefit to the full extent of the improvement. There is one moral to be drawn from this Debate, and that is that it clearly shows that, notwithstanding the Mines Department of the Board of Trade, they can do very little to improve the coal trade. It can be done only by a closer cooperation between capital and labour, in working the mines and in finding markets for the coal when it is got. Therefore, I hope we shall have no more speeches of the character of that delivered by the hon. Member for Ogmore, referring to tyranny that is exercised by the coalowners.

Mr. GEORGE BARKER: The mining industry has been before this House annually for probably over 30 years. There is no greater tragedy connected with our civilisation than the terrible
death-rate and accident rate in our mines, and I was very glad to hear the Secretary for Mines express his determination to improve the working conditions as far as the safety of the miners was concerned, but I find in his report that the only reduction that he has made in his staff is to take away from his staff the Director of Health and Safety. That does not tally with the professions that he has made to the House. There is another matter that I want to allude to before I get to my main object in rising, and that is with reference to the inspectorate in South Wales. I do not think it will add to the danger of the mines in South Wales if the right Son. Gentleman would appoint inspectors who understand the language of the men working there. He has made two appointments quite recently; neither of these men are Welshmen, and I do not think they can speak the vernacular of the men engaged in the Welsh mines. I have had a letter today from a miner's agent in South Wales, where the men all speak Welsh, strongly protesting against the appointments the right hon. Gentleman has made. I hope it is not too late for him to reconsider the situation. I am certain it would be very difficult for him to find reasons why Welsh inspectors should not be appointed to Welsh collieries.
This time last year this House was congratulating itself that the coal industry had got free from Government control. Very fine prophecies were made in this House, and this change, this delivery of the industry from the hampering fetters of the Government, was hailed with great jubilation by many hon. Members. We were told that we should soon have the coal industry restored to its pre-War prosperity and that the owners would very soon get into the outer places of the world and recover our lost markets. I think only a month ago the President of the Board of Trade was congratulating himself upon the splendid revival in the coal trade.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): I am sure I never said anything of the kind.

Mr. BARKER: I am within the recollection of the House.

Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member is entirely wrong. I cannot allow a state-
ment of that kind to pass. What he probably has in mind was my statement— and I did say this—that it was very remarkable how the export of trade in coal-one branch of one trade—had shown a revival far beyond what was expected some months ago.

Mr. BARKER: That is exactly what I said.

Mr. BALDWIN: Not at all.

Mr. BARKER: Now, after twelve months, we find the industry in a worse condition than it has been in within the memory of living man. Twelve months ago the industry was what we may term a unit; the same rate of wages was being paid practically throughout the country, and practically the same rate of profits was paid to the coalowner. To-day, however, and this is a fact which cannot be disputed, since the Government decontrolled the mines 100,000 miners have been unable to find any employment in the mines. Reference has been made to the financial side of the industry. I have some figures here, and I am going to show the wretched conditions prevailing to-day among the workmen in the South Wales and other coalfields. The conditions prevailing in many mining areas are deplorable in the extreme. Owing to the lack of means with which to buy fuel, the miners to-day have to go to the old colliery tips and gather it. Even little children have to go to these tips to collect fuel, and in Abertillery once last week two little boys went to the tips to get a bit of coal. Unfortunately, both of them were buried and lost their lives. The same kind of thing exists in other parts of South Wales, and particularly in Blaina and Nantyglo. Last week a miner went to one of these tips— he was forced to go, because he had no fuel for his home—and unfortunately he was buried there while trying to get the fuel.
On 22nd May, 1922, the number of miners unemployed, according to the figures given by the Secretary for Mines, was 97,272, and these men had all been unemployed for 12 months In South Wales, the number is stated to be over 40,000, and there are another 40,000 in that coalfield earning only £l 18s. 4d. per week when they work a full week. The whole of the miners are being
exploited by the nation, because they are being paid a lower rate of wage than any other industry in the kingdom. When we brought before this House the question of getting a subsidy for the miners, it was received with ridicule and with derision.

Mr. H0PKINS0N: Hear, hear!

Mr. BARKER: Yes, but what is being done to-day? Instead of giving a subsidy out of the national revenue, you are driving these people on to the rates and they have to get a subsidy out of local taxation. That is what you are doing, and the very men who are earning the low rate of wages to which I have referred are being compelled to contribute, in the shape of rates, to the maintenance of these unemployed. I have figures here which show that on 11th January no less than 536 men were summoned because they were unable to pay their rates—many of them were unemployed and could not pay. In Abertillery hundreds of men were summoned, and some of them were ex service men out of employment. The chairman of the bench, in dealing with these cases, said:
I know of cases of men who have worked and have had deductions in their pay tickets. I think one man took home 6d.
After he had paid for his rent and the coal that he had, this man had 6d. left with which to maintain his family. Yet he, along with others, was brought before the magistrates because he could not pay his rates.
That is the condition to which the greatest industry in this country has been reduced under private enterprise, which is so glorified by hon. Members on the other side of the House. No greater calamity happened to the miners of this country than the decontrolling of the mines by the Government, and the misery they have inflicted through that act is beyond the description of language. A lady went to Abertillery and Blaina three weeks ago to investigate conditions there. She was horrified at the state of things prevailing in that neighbourhood. She found cases where women had been driven to suicide through starvation. That is the kind of thing that is going on in the mining industry to-day.
There is another side to this picture. It is very curious, when the financial side of the industry has been referred to, that some of the balance-sheets published quite recently have not been mentioned. Notwithstanding the terrible condition of the workers in the mining industry, we find that the Tredegar Iron and Coal Company have just made a profit of £158,505, and within the last few days they have declared a dividend of 12½ per cent. Yet this company, which has made all this wealth, has over 500 men unemployed, and those men have been turned on to the rates and are dragging these local areas into bankruptcy and starvation. This is the result of Government decontrol of the mines. Guest, Keen and Nettlefold have just issued their balance-sheet. During this terrible depression in trade, when poverty exists on every hand and when the working classes do not know how to get sustenance, we find that this company have made a profit of £810,000 and have paid a dividend of 10 per cent. William Cory and Son, in 1921, made £770,000 profit, and paid 20 per cent. dividend. In 1922, they have made £601,000 profit, and paid 15 per cent. dividend.
That is the condition of the capitalist during the period of the greatest depression the world has ever seen. I think this industry does want looking into. I quite agree that it is time the Government made some investigation with reference to it, or they might go back to the investigation that has already been made by the Sankey Commission, and see whether some of the recommendations of that Commission would not improve the industry so far as the mass of the workers is concerned. One colliery —probably there are others—has made a loss of £752. This shows the anarchic condition into which the coal industry has fallen. On the one hand, we have colliery companies making huge profits and declaring high dividends, while other colliery companies are practically in a state of bankruptcy. When the miners asked that the industry should be unified, and that there should be a pool from which all the men throughout the Kingdom could be paid the same scale of wages, that demand was destroyed by the greatest lock-out ever seen in this country. The hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) spoke about the
effects of strikes, but he said nothing about the effects of lock-outs. Last year we had in the coal industry the greatest lock-out ever seen, and we had this year the greatest lock-out in the engineering industry that has been known. Yet hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House continually preach to hon. Members on this side about the advantages of mutuality and good will. I want to say a few words with reference to another company. Probably the greatest distress prevalent in this country exists in Blaina, Nantyglo and Abertillery.
8.0 p.m.
A few years ago, in l916. these collieries were owned by four different companies, but, during the War, the Ebbw Vale Company purchased these collieries. They borrowed large sums of money to purchase them. The profit they made from the year 1916 to the year 1921 was no less than £2,599,531, and During that period they paid a dividend of 77½ per cent. The profit for 1920–21 was £617,420, burin February, 1921, this company closed three of their collieries down completely, partly closed others, and reduced the wages of the men working below the level of the general agreement by tampering with their price lists and customs, and thus put the onus of maintaining these unemployed men upon the ratepayers, with the result that they have to be paid now out of the rate;;. This area has already an overdraft of over £100,000 The people in this area have to maintain these men after there fabulous profits have been made for this Ebbw Vale Company. Such a state of things as that is a great reflection on the wisdom and intelligence of this House. I should like to know what the Government intend to do in reference to this question of unemployment. They have been treating it as if it were a passing phase. Unfortunately, it is not. Is has been with us now for nearly two years, and although I do not want to pose as a pessimist I, personally, cannot see any light upon the situation. During the period of the War we had 8,000,000 of the finest workers of this country engaged in non-productive work. Those men have been sent back into employment, and, personally, I do not think in the present economic conditions that these men can possibly be found employment under the present system.
The Government will have to face this question because what is being done today is that we have practically 70 per cent. of our men working at the highest possible productive pressure. They have been driven by all kinds of devices to put the last ounce of their physical capacity into their work, only for the purpose afterwards of leaving the other 30 per cent. practically unemployed. I was surprised at the hon. Member for Central Cardiff, although there is one thing about him I do admire, and that is that he is very frank and straight in what he has to say. But I was very surprised to hear him clamouring for an eight-hours day. Way, in Northumberland and Durham they have had a seven-hours day for the last 30 or 40 years, and if they brought eight hours back into South Wales they would simply be blacklegging the miners of Durham and Northumberland. But how would that be a solution of the problem? It is ridiculous to-day with 2,000,000 unemployed to ask the men who are employed to increase their powers of production. The more they produce, it is obvious, the more must they put out of employment. Hon. Members on the other side of the House treat that statement with levity.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Hear, hear!

Mr. BARKER: But it will stand the test of experience, and there are some of us here, unfortunately, old enough to know that we worked long hours and had unemployment as we have to-day. There-fee, this low cost of production is an absolute bogey. If that is the remedy, how is it we are not working full time in this country at the present moment? Miners have been reduced below the pre-War standard by about 30 per cent., but that has not revived trade. It is obvious that if we in this country reduce wages our competitors on the other side of the channel can resort to the same thing, and you can go on reducing wages until you have no wages at all for the worker, and have bankrupted the whole industry. It is obvious that cheapness is not the remedy. If it were, we ought to be in a highly-flourishing position. I think it is time that the Government and the House got down to this problem of unemployment. If they think it is a temporary phase they will find their great mistake. Our people to-day are having their physical vitality sapped, and are becoming
demoralised by this method of dealing with unemployment. Yesterday there was one of the most influential meetings ever held in one of the rooms of this House at which we had some of the finest experts in this country who came to us and addressed us as Members of Parliament, and who were alarmed at the physical deterioration of the people of this country. They told us they were going to the Ministry of Health for the purpose of calling its attention to this state of things. I think it is very nearly time that this question was dealt with in more serious manner than now.
These doles are no remedy. They are the greatest waste imaginable, and how anyone who speaks of thrift and conserving the national finances can possibly support the system we have had in this country for the last two years passes my comprehension. I say solemnly it is the duty of the Government to see that every man and woman in this country who can work should have work found for them. We have said many times here that it should be work or maintenance. I do not say work or maintenance. I say they should have employment, and it is the duty of the Government to see that employment is found for the people of this country. They have been dispossessed of the land, of every atom of mineral wealth, of the factories, and are in a state utterly dependent on the employing class, yet the employing class refuses to em-ploy them. The hon. Member for Central Cardiff was chiding the miners because they wore not satisfied to work for the capitalists. Why did he become a capitalist if it is so advantageous to be a workman? He took the very first opportunity presented to him to climb out of the ranks of the working classes. I do not say anything against him for that. it is a credit, perhaps, to his ability, but why he should chide the working man because he does not feel in a blithe state of happiness and bliss when he is working for the capitalist is beyond my comprehension. It is high time that the Government took it in hand and found work for the workers, or let someone else have an opportunity to try to govern the country.

Major HILLS: The speech of the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) leaves the ordinary man like myself considerably puzzled, and with a feeling something akin to despair. What are the
facts? They are perfectly well-known. The wage of the hewer of coal is only a fraction above the pre-War level. The cost of living is considerably higher, and therefore the real wage is considerably lower than the pre-War standard. On the other hand, each individual pair of hands is now producing more coal than it did, and the price of coal, taking one quality with another, is just about double the pre-War figure. In spite of these facts, the hon. Member for Central Cardiff has proved that the coalowners cannot increase the miner's wage, and he has gone beyond that, if I do not misunderstand him, and has said further that the industry cannot recover until the price of coal is lower; and the price cannot be lower without a further reduction of wages.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: And railway rates.

Major HILLS: Those are the facts, and on those facts my constituents are starving. Everybody knows it is true. Everybody know that if it had not been for the great patience and endurance and wish to try and pull through, of the miners of this country, there would have been far more talk and far more resentment from those who represent the mining industry. The miners in this House have tried to put the ease to the Government I do not blame the Government. I am very far from blaming the Secretary for Mines, for he is not concerned in the matter at all, as the Government have no control over wages. I want to bring it before them that when you get a state of things as bad as I do assure the House it is in the mining districts—everybody who knows a mining district knows I am not exaggerating-it is for Parliament to find some way out. I have listened to all this Debate, and the only suggestion I have heard of a way out, beyond the suggestion of the last speaker, that we should abolish the system of private ownership altogether —a subject with which I will not deal, because it will lead me far afield, except to say that I do not believe it would achieve the object the hon. Member has at heart, and I entirely disagree with it —was made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, who put down the whole of the trouble to high railway rates. It is perfectly well known that rates are higher
than before the War, but the House will remember that if you are to reduce railway rates, you must do that either out of the profits of the shareholders or out of the wages of the railway workers. When it is suggested that the shareholders, who only receive their 1913 dividends, a bare 4 per cent. on their capital, should be further depleted, I think we are entitled to ask that the profits made by companies concerned in coal should also be reduced.

Mr. GOULD: They are.

Major HILLS: I am glad my hon. Friend has come back to the House. He knows that if you are to reduce railway rates you must reduce railway wages. It is just as well to be plain about that. I think, if he will allow me to say so, that he skated rather skilfully over that rather difficult subject. We all know that the only fund out of which you can reduce railway rates are the wages of the railway workers. First of all, were the company now to reduce wages they would be breaking a bargain. The railway wages are fixed by an agreement whereby they come down 1s. per week for each fall of five points in the cost of living, estimates being taken at three months' interval. They are falling, and falling very rapidly.

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (by Order.)

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered." put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 35.—(Power to borrow.)

(1)The Corporation may from time to time independently of any other borrowing power borrow at interest on the security of the revenues of the Corporation and for the purposes mentioned in the first column of the following table the respective sums
mentioned in the second column thereof and they shall pay off all money so borrowed within the respective periods (each of which

Purpose.
Amount.
Period for Repayment.


(a)For and in connection with the purchase of lands and easements for and the construction of the waterworks authorised by this Act.
£588,000
Seventy years from the date or dates of borrowing.


(b) For paying the costs charges and expenses of this Act.
The sum requisite
Five years from the passing of this Act.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, a) to leave out the word "seventy" ["seventy years"], and to insert instead thereof the word "sixty."
I feel bound to call the attention of the House to the fact that the Bill, as reported, embodies an infraction of the Standing Orders of the House. The Standing Order says:
In the case of any Bill promoted by or conferring powers on a municipal corporation or local board…the Committee on the Hill shall consider the Clauses of the Bill with reference to the following matters…
I omit those matters except paragraph (c), which says:
Whether the Bill assigns a period for repayment of any loan or for the redemption of any charge or debt, under the Bill execeding the term of sixty years, which term the Committee shall not in any case allow to be exceeded…
This Bill, as reported, allows a term of 70 years, which means an infraction of the Standing Order I have quoted. It may be that, under the special circumstances of the case, and owing to the solidity and permanence, or quasi permanence of the works, or to existing financial considerations, there may be very good reasons for extending the period to 70 years, but those reasons, I think, ought to be explained to the House. The Committee; have put in a Report which says that they have thought necessary to ignore the Standing Order, but they give no reasons for so doing. It may well be that those reasons are adequate, but the House must be the judge of that. Therefore, to enable the matter to be explained to the House, I beg to move the Amendment in my name.

is in this Act referred to as "the prescribed period") mentioned in the third column of the said table (namely): —

Sir HARRY SAMUEL: As Chairman of the Committee which reported to this House, I ask leave to make a short statement in order that I may be able to lay before the House the reasons which actuated my Committee in the course it took. May I say, as a very old Chairman of that Private Bill Committee, that there is no man who is more actuated by a sense of responsibility to the Standing Orders of this House than I am. Firstly, may I say that the Report of my Committee is substantially the same as in similar circumstances since 1913 in relation to most of the Bills which have been on all fours with the one which came before me and my Committee. I I should like, in carrying out the view expressed by the Chairman of Ways and Means, to tell the House that this Bill authorises the acquisition of additional ground and the construction of two reservoirs for the supply of water for Halifax and the large areas surrounding the borough. The need for further supplies was undeniably proved to the Committee which very carefully considered the corporation proposals. The cost of the land and drainage area and the construction of the reservoirs and work connected therewith is estimated to amount, roughly, to £600,000. The reservoirs, of course, will be of a permanent character and will continue for practically all time; at any rate, for far beyond the period allowed, within which the money borrowed for their construction has to be repaid. The other works consist of lines, pipes, roads, etc., and they also will stand for the period of the loan, or beyond that period. The period in the Standing Order was a pre-War period. Conditions have changed, or arisen since the War, and they very materially affect the money market, and
have justified the extension of the period of repayment to the extra 10 years. The existing generation will get some benefit at least from the new works, and future generations will get a longer use, and greater advantage over the present time, and they certainly should contribute to the expenditure, so that the burden may be distributed more evenly.
The House of Commons has on several occasions allowed the Standing Order to be waived Before the War this was the case with the Metropolitan Water Board Bill and the Manchester Ship Canal Bill, and during the War it was the Bristol Corporation Bill of 1918, for which 80 years was allowed. After the; War the Manchester Corporation Bill of 1919 was given 80 years. In the case of the Newport Corporation Act of 1920, SO years was allowed, and so in the ease of the Huddersfield Corporation (Acquisition of Land) Bill. The time, was extended to Bills brought in in 1921 for similar purposes. I venture to hope, after this statement, that the House, if it be so pleased, will dispense with the Standing Order and allow the period of 70 years which is asked for.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: By leave of the House, I may perhaps speak again. After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, if the House is not disposed to raise further objection, I do not feel called upon to do so. Therefore, in the first instance, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment I have moved, and after that is accomplished I will move the Adjournment of the Consideration in order to put in words which have been inserted in a similar case, to make it clear that this is an exceptional case, and is not to be used as a precedent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Monday next.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL. (By Order.)

Order for Third Heading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the word
This House declines to give a Third Reading to the Bill on the grounds that it contains proposals it; direct opposition to the principles for which the county councils are endeavonring to obtain definite recognition, and upon which the proposed Royal Commission on the creation and extension of county borough-will be asked to pronounce; that it is therefore a highly contentious Measure falling within the spirit of the undertaking recently given by the Minister of Health in the House of Commons and should accordingly not be further proceeded with pending the Report of the said Commission and consideration of its recommendations by Parliament.
On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for the Thirsk and Malton Division (Mr. Turton), I move the Amendment standing in his name I do this with a view of entering an emphatic protest against taking this Bill after the definite statement made by the Minister of Health to this House on, I believe, the discussion of the Leeds and Bradford Measure. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion said, speaking of borough extensions and the creation of new county boroughs:
I do not propose to proceed on the lines of conferences, hut by the method of a Royal Commission to which I understand both sides are now agreeable. The question of when the Royal Commission should be appointed is one which requires further consideration.
Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
In the interval we should call a halt and I should like to take advantage of this occasion to give notice, so far as the Ministry is concerned, that no contentious proposals for the extension of boroughs and the creation of new county boroughs will be entertained by the Ministry in the meantime."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 13th June, 1922; col. 306–7, Vol. 155.]
After that clear and definite statement from the Minister of Health we consider that a breach of faith has been committed with regard to the undertaking given to the County Councils' Association. Since the inception of county councils a very
great change has taken place all over the country. Some of the areas within an administrative county have become Indus-tralised, and they have come forward to seek to be made county boroughs apart from those areas. In view of what has taken place in this respect, to proceed with such an order as this for Doncaster is quite illogical. It raises the whole principle which is at stake between county boroughs and county councils, and if that be so surely there is here a real test case and it ought to come before the proposed Royal Commission on the creation and extension of county boroughs for consideration.
On what ground is Doncaster seeking to be made a county borough? Simply on the ground that it has 50,000 inhabitants. Surely the proportion of the county borough, urban council and district councils, ought to be considered when you are dealing with a matter of this kind. Surely there cannot be any ground for alienating a portion of a county area simply because it has 50,000 inhabitants, and there ought to be much more substantial ground before this House should listen to any such request. I cannot say that I know so much about this subject as some of my hon. Friends here, but I have had the matter brought to my notice by the County Councils' Association. Many of these areas are desirous of becoming separated from the county areas because by so doing they can get rid of certain expenses for the maintenance of main roads and other county services which the county must render to them in any case, and which would increase their rates. They think that by becoming a county borough the roads leading to their borough must be maintained by the county, and consequently they are trying to get rid of their responsibilities in regard to this matter.
There are also other expenses which they think they will be able to get rid of. For these reasons I wish to protest against this Bill being carried any further. We thought that a halt had been called now that no further county boroughs would be created. We have, however, been rudely awakened by this Bill being thrust upon us. I feel sure that even Durham would have a better case for being made a county borough than many of those towns which have made such an application. My con-
stituency has been industrialised from one end to the other, and if we have to be governed in a different fashion, then let us approach the question with our eyes open, and let everybody concerned have a say in the matter. If we go in the way suggested by this Bill, then county administration will become absolutely impossible. The whole thing is impracticable, and that is the reason why I have moved the Resolution on the Paper.

Mr. LUNN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir HARRY SAMUEL: I offer a humble apology for intruding in this Debate for a very few moments. This Bill came before my consideration as Chairman of the Committee, and for this reason I think it is my duty to lay before the House the full particulars which we have gleaned after a very careful examination of the whole question of Doncaster's application. First of all, I should like to correct my hon. Friend's statement about Doncaster. Doncaster is not doing anything which was not anticipated. May I begin by saying that the Act of 1888 deprived a large number of very ancient boroughs, which had quarter sessions of their own, of the right of self-government, and Parliament, in passing that Act, had clearly before its mind the fact that in certain circumstances these ancient boroughs might ask this House to restore to them the powers taken away from them under that Act.
The Act of 1888 fixed an arbitrary principle of population and it fixed it at 50,000 inhabitants. The result was that however progressive an ancient Corporation might have been, or however well it had been managing its own affairs, or however high its reputation stood, still it had to bow to the ruling of this House and it had to part with rights which it valued enormously and rights which it? has hankered after ever since. After all there are very few of us, if we have been deprived of anything which we value very greatly, who would not endeavour to lay the foundation to regain it. I think the least we can do is to grant that liberty to a great and ancient corporation which we so much covert for ourselves. What has happened in this case is exactly what has happened before in the case of all the ancient boroughs in the West Riding. There is not one of
those ancient boroughs with a population of 50,000 which has not had restored to it the powers which it used to have.
If that be so, why exclude Doncaster simply because certain hon. Members fear that the county council is going to lose something by it. I have listened to a good many Debates in this House, and we have always set our face against the policy of grab. Whenever a great corporation has made proposals to add very largely to its territory this House has always been very careful to preserve the rights of small areas against any such policy. Here are the county councils, and by an Act of Parliament they have obtained something which they had not the remotest idea of obtaining when the Act was passed, and now they are hanging on tenaciously to something which they think is of value to them. I think it is our duty to safeguard and watch all over all these interests and pay due regard to the interests of the ancient corporations, and that is what I and my Committee have endeavoured to do.
It has been said that this Bill was only passed by the casting vote of the Chairman, but that is perfectly untrue. Ours was a unanimous decision, although there was some hesitation. I am a man who loathes hesitation of any kind, and I have always endeavoured in any Committee with which I have been connected to get them to agree with me on definite lines laid down clearly by this House. We wanted to draw attention to a particular fact. I am not sorry that this movement on the part of certain hon. Members has given me an opportunity of bringing it to the light of day. We ventured to think, when we looked at the whole thing, that the cases both for the petitioners and for the Bill had been badly prepared. The witnesses brought before us on behalf of Doneaster were so poor that really had not Doneaster had an unanswerable case, we should have been bound to throw it over. We found that they had fixed on matters of infinitesimal importance, such as the irritation of certain great Don-caster human beings at being governed from Wakefield. I quite understand the feeling. I know, as an old Londoner, what we feel when anyone endeavours to guide the London intellect which we regard as so superior. We are so egotistical that we plant our roots firmly down
in the soil in which we exist, and we think it our duty to make people fall in with our views.
The curious point was that when we came to the case for the petitioners we found it even worse prepared than the case for the promoters. The eminent King's Counsel who had the conduct of the case, did not bring one single witness to counteract the evidence given by the other side. A witness on that had put before us matters which we thought were unanswerable. I put this question to him:
Is not the whole thing a question of finance? Is it not a question of the West Riding being loth to lose these large sums of money"?
The answer was, "Yes." I fully expected, when the petitioners case was opened, that we should have some equally eminent financial witness on that side to point out how poor was the case advanced by the financial witness to whom I have referred. But the eminent King's Counsel who was conducting the case finished his speech by saying that he would not endeavour to strengthen his case by bringing up a long line of witnesses. If there is one thing from which, serving on these Committees, I draw my nutrition, it is from what the witnesses may tell me, and surely we were entitled to think, under the circumstances, that the eminent King's Counsel had no witnesses to produce. We decided then and there that the Doneaster case was unanswerable, and that there had been no refutation of it of any sort whatsoever. There was no suggestion of any shape or description that, during the whole of the years they had had the conduct of then-own business, they had shown themselves incapable of carrying it on.
With regard to the arguments advanced in favour of further delay, I am rather reminded of this. If one had a son who was sitting for an examination and had practically passed it. would it not be surprising if it were suddenly said to him, "We will go no further with this examination, although you are practically through, because we are going to have a Commission appointed to see whether or not the examination is difficult enough." During the many years I have been associated with this House, I have always found it to be eminently fair in everything it has done and decided, and
in asking hon. Members to adopt the same line as the Committee have adopted, after doing their best to examine every' detail of the Measure, I am only asking, it to follow a course which has always obtained in the Parliament of this nation.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I have no intention of pressing the Amendment to a Division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

SUPPLY.

REPORT [18th May.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment proposed on Consideration of Resolution reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £95,284, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31at day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade.

Question again proposed, "That '£95,284' stand part of the Resolution."

Debate resumed.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: In resuming the discussion on the Mines Department Vote, I wish to say that the claim we put to tie Government is that there shall be an inquiry into the actual conditions obtaining not in one area in the British coalfields, but in all the areas, because we are satisfied, from the information we get, that there is an equal need for inquiry being made in all areas. Twelve months have elapsed since the men returned to work after the stoppage from April to July of last year. Members of this House will agree with me that we who represented the miners' section of the community were somewhat doubtful as to the advantages that would follow the acceptance of the agreement then submitted to us, although there was no doubt in the minds of the employers' representative here, and of the Government, that if the miners would work the scheme that had been agreed to by the representatives of all parties in the Conferences which had been in progress for some weeks prior to the cessation of the trouble, prosperity would return to the
industry. Our claim was that an attempt should be made to so arrange the conditions in the mining industry as to provide for something like uniformity in wage conditions, but we were told that that was absolutely impracticable and that it would ruin the industry if such a policy were adopted. We were also promised certain good things if only we would accept the arrangement. We were compelled to accept the terms. I purposely say we did not accept them voluntarily; we were compelled to accept them largely because we found that the forces against us were too strong, and our men had sacrificed as long and as much as they possibly could.
For 12 months we have been working under these district arrangements, and the coalowners have had every opportunity. They have had little or no Government interference. They cannot plead coal control as a cause of the condition in which the industry finds itself to-day. They have had 12 months to prove that the promises they made were capable of fulfilment, but, instead of any improvement having resulted from the agreements, things are a great deal worse, not in one district but in all districts, thereby proving to the fullest extent the wisdom of the Royal Commission, who recommended that the system which had been in operation in the management and control of the mining industry up to the year 1919 had failed, and that it was now a question either of Government control, Government owner ship, national ownership, or joint control. The employers would have none of these. They told us that the Government could not control the industry satisfactorily, and they held that we were not sufficiently intelligent to co-operate with them in its management. It is just possible that we are not as wise as we might be, but there is a plentiful lack of wisdom in this House, notwithstanding that we are the chosen of the whole community, and it is just possible that we might be induced to believe that the employers knew their business if they all said the same thing; but they do not.
The hon. Member for Cardiff (Mr. Gould) says one thing, and other gentlemen who are not in this House—some of them are in another place—who are very much interested in the mining industry, say the very opposite of what the hon. Member says. In the "Economist" of
last week—and the "Economist" is just as strong on our side as the "Daily Herald"—there is a report of a meeting of John Brown and Company at Sheffield, and it contains some remarks of the chairman of that company which are worthy of consideration. The chairman of that company is a Member of the other House, and I cannot, I suppose, criticise him for anything he might say there; but he did not happen to say what I am going to refer to in the other House; it was in an entirely different place. He said it at Sheffield, so I understand that I shall be quite in order in making reference to it, and I commend it to the Government as worthy of their attention, and of the attention of some of their supporters who blindly believe that there is no possibility of improvement from any change that might be made in the control or management of the industry. Lord Aberconway, the chairman of John Brown and Company, Limited, at their annual meeting in Sheffield, said:
Coal was at the bottom of all industry, and blast furnaces came next. Blast furnaces could only work on cheap coke, which had fallen from 61s. to 17s. per ton. That helped a lot, but at 17s. per ton coke was not profitable. In Yorkshire, miners' wages were 64 per cent. above the basis, and coal-owners had to compete with other districts where the wages were only 20 per cent. above the basis; and, when they recollected that the reduction in the selling price of coal was more than double the reduction in wages, they would see what a very tight corner they were in.
One of the point to which I want to draw attention in that statement is that in the opinion of Lord Aberconway the only way by which his interests can be managed successfully is to reduce the Yorkshire miners and their wives and families to the same condition as the wives and families of the men in Wales, Scotland, Cumberland and the lower districts. A man who has only that amount of wisdom is not fit for a place in the other House.

Mr, LUNN: May I make one correction in my hon. Friend's remarks? Lord Aberconway said that a week ago, but the miners' wages in Yorkshire to-day are 11 points lower than they were a week ago, and now we are promised that they will be considerably lower, perhaps at the bottom with other districts, a month hence.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: The belief, apparently, that is held by the chairman of
this company is that the only way out of their difficulty is to bring the Yorkshire wages down to the Scottish wages. I want to tell the Yorkshire miners that that is the way disaster lies; it is not the way in which this industry can be restored to prosperity, but one by which it can be made a great deal worse than it is at the present time. Another point, and one which, again, I commend to the hon. Member for Cardiff and one or two other hon. Members, is that this statement is an admission that all the promises of a year ago have failed to bring about the conditions which we were told were going to be brought about. It cannot be said that the miners have not worked during the last 12 months. It cannot be said that we, the miners' leaders, have been responsible for bringing about strikes during that period. It was a favourite argument fifteen months ago that we were largely responsible for the conditions, and for the demands that the men were making. That, surely, cannot be said now. During the last 12 months our whole time and attention have been taken up in attempting to get the men to do the impossible, to work under conditions that make it absolutely impossible for them to live a decent life; and I want to say quite frankly that the meanest miner in this country is as much entitled to a comfortable life as the most intelligent Member of this House. He is a much more useful member of the community. He is a creator of wealth, while we are only consumers of wealth, and there are men at the present moment who are probably spending as much at the dinner table as some men I know will be able to draw for a whole week, after going day after day to the pit, and finding either that there is no work for them, or that the wages they get are at such a rate as to make it impossible for them to live anything like a decent life. We are anxious now as we were then, that there should be peace in the mining industry, but not a ten years' truce under the present conditions We want permanent peace, and permanent peace cannot be established in the mining industry so long as it is under the control of private enterprise—and private enterprise of such a kind that the men who are really in control know absolutely nothing of either the practical or the theoretical side of the industry. What does Lord Aberconway, for instance, know about
mining? What need he know? He is the chairman of a number of companies, in all of which he will be paid director's fees. He is fairly comfortable, while we have to pay the whole cost of management and maintenance. Lord Abercon-way also said something else, and I should like the President of the Board of Trade to take a note of this, and to read the "Economist" of last week. Lord Aberconway also said:
Last year English basic pig iron was £9 per ton compared with Belgium at £8 15s. per ton. But we, the British iron producers, had brought prices down this year to £8 10s. There was no profit. But we had got to quote these prices, to retain what trade there was. Last year's steam coal was 35s. a ton. This year it had fallen to 20s. per ton. Our imports from Belgium and Germany were 66,000 tons less than last year while the exports were 23,000 tons more. With France imports were 40,000 tons less and exports 23,000 tons more. If you take the general trade of the world in which we are interested you will find that imports are 117,000 tons less and exports 150,000 tons more, making 270,000 tons in our favour. These figures show that as soon as we get prices down to an economic level an improvement sets in.
Lord Aberconway, who is a very big figure in the iron trade, and whose word, I suppose, will go further with Members of the House than mine or that of any Member of this party, says they have broken prices, or in other words, they have won back the trade at the expenses of the stomachs of the wives and children of the men in the mining industry. Lord Aberconway and the shareholders and directors of these companies suffered little or nothing. A man who has made £5,000 a year and loses £1,000 of it is still fairly well off, but when a man has only £l a week, and you take 15s. of it and leave him only with 5s., he is in a very much worse position. I have heard men who have had an opportunity of acquiring all the information and knowledge it is possible to acquire with regard to the science of political economy. I should like to know what they mean by an economic level. What is an economic level? Not 20 per cent. on the 1914 wages I hope the Government will note that part of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Gould) when he promised us that next month and the month after conditions, might be as bad as they are now, if not worse. What does that mean? Does it mean that there is an arrangement amongst the owners that the coal
industry has to be maintained in the condition it is in at present until they can compel the miners to give them better terms under a new agreement? Is that the intention? It would be worth while finding that out. That is one reason why the Government should be agreeable to setting up some committee to inquire into the whole working of this question.
9.0 p.m.
I attended a Scottish executive meeting on Monday and we had information for the first time that there was not sufficient in the industry to pay the 17 per cent. minimum profit to the owners. That means that a certain number of thousands of pounds have to be carried forward against the miners whenever an improvement takes place in prices or in the industry itself, and it also suggests that in the opinion of the Scottish coalowners at least we have not reached the bottom. I know, and other members of the organisation with which I am connected in Scotland know perfectly well that it is the desire of the leading members of the Scottish coalowners to get away the 20 per cent. that we have on 1914 wages. Lord Aberconway is the Chairman of collieries in probably the finest coalfield in the Kingdom where the cost of production is very considerably less than it is in other districts. He is a victim of conditions which make it impossible for him to provide work for his men in that great coalfield, unless they are prepared to come down to the conditions obtaining in the lowest paid coal area in the country. That can be done. You can allow things to slide and leave the men engaged in the industry to settle the matter for themselves. Some of you are very anxious that there should be a return of general prosperity and you want peace. You can only expect to have peace provided the men engaged in the production of the wealth of the country feel satisfied that they are not being unfairly treated.
There is not a man who knows anything at all about the conditions of the mining industry who will for a moment deny that, relatively to other sections of the community, the miner at present is in a bad way. No one can justify the situation that exists in the mining districts. They suggest that we should increase output. You can increase output and increase accidents at the same time. Never mind what the figures are.
We know perfectly well from actual experience, and our experience when working in the mine is the experience of the men who are working there to-day, that if wages are reduced and rates are reduced they are reduced for the express purpose of speeding up, and it is speeding up that causes carelessness. I want to dissociate myself entirely from the statement that the miner under ordinary normal circumstances is a careless workman for his own safety, but he may be compelled,; by the conditions imposed upon him, to be less careful than he ought to be. The hon. Member (Mr. Gould) says, "Go back to eight hours," and that was echoed and cheered by the hon. Member (Mr. Hopkinson). He sought to show that there was very considerable diminution in output as compared with 1913. That is the opinion of the hon. Member. In the "Economist" for 24th December, 1921, there is an article entitled "The Darkest Hour," and I will read a part of what it says:
In certain of our most important industries workpeople have come to recognise that wages are governed not by theoretical standards, but by what the world is prepared to pay for their products. At this moment, at the close of a year in the course of which was waged the greatest coal fight in our industrial history, the coal industry has travelled 6o far that the output of the mines per man per ship is as high as it was in the 'Banner' year of 1913.
Who is wrong? We suggest that the Government should set up an inquiry and find out who is wrong. The hon. Member for Cardiff says that he is interested, and that he knows. He speaks officially for the South Wales coalowners. Surely, the man who is writing on this subject in "The Economist," for the benefit of the commercial classes, knows what he is talking about, and his statement is in direct contradiction to the statement made by the hon. Member for Cardiff. There are several other quotations which I will read, and of which I desire an explanation, if it can be forthcoming. In "The Economist," on the 22nd January, 1921, when we were discussing the question of the future regulation of the mining industry between the coalowners and ourselves, and the miners were working, not idle, there appeared an article from a correspondent of "The Economist" in France, in which he gives certain information that was not very well understood
or known by the general public in this country. Dealing with the French coal position, he said:
The circumstances that have resulted in English coal being for all practical purposes driven off the French market by the American and German product is regarded by experts here as being almost entirely due to the system of long term credits conceded by the American financiers. The history of the manner in which American coal has ousted the British product from France is not flattering to the English national pride. When the French Government, after vainly endeavouring to obtain a reduction in price from the British Cabinet, prohibited, as a last resort, the purchase of British coal, the door was opened wide for the advent of the American combustible.
That is to say, that when we were discussing the question of the future regulation of the mining industry, 18 months ago, it was within the knowledge of the British Cabinet that the French, our allies in the late War, had deliberately boycotted British coal. Why? Because we book advantage of our allies to the advantage of the consumers in this country. During the period of control the consumers in this country got their coal at infinitely less than its economic value. The French and Italians had to pay the full economic value. The people here got their coal for infinitely less, and it was the difference in price at which we sold to our allied customers, as compared with the price that the coal was being sold to our home consumers, that constitutes the claim that we make that something like £600,000,000, £700,000,000 or £800,000,000 went into the National Exchequer, through the pockets of the consumers of British coal. I have read what "The Economist" says. I hope we can take "The Economist" as being a fairly good authority I will quote from the London "Times," net always favourable to the Government and not always favourable to us. On the 17th December, 1921, there was an article from a correspondent in America referring to British coal in the United States:
According to a message from Washington, published in the; Journal of Commerce, the competition of British coal in the Atlantic ports of the United States has induced the Secretary of Commerce to request the railway companies to reduce their rates for the carriage of coal to these ports by 5s. a ton. Mr. Hoover is stated to have explained to a joint conference of railway and mining representatives that British coal is now being sold in New York and Boston for general consumption, and that United States and other ships tend to bunker more
and more abroad on account of the lower prices charged for British coal, and large contracts are being offered in the West Indies by British firms on lower terms than those quoted by competitors in the United States. Owing to this, large mines in the United States had been shut down, and others would have to be closed in the near future unless some way could be found to meet the foreign competition.
What foreign competition? British competition. That is the only foreign competition, and the only kind of competition that America had to face in the world's markets during and since the period of the War.
It is understood that, although the proposed reduction of 5s. per ton will leave the railway companies without any profit on the carriage of the coal, the railway companies view the difficulties of the coal exporters with considerable sympathy.
That sympathy is being shown in the fact that there is a strike in America at the present time of miners and also of the railway men. On the same day, in "Plain English," a thoroughly patriotic journal, there is an article entitled, "The Labour Party and its Policy," by E. P. Hewitt, K.C., LL.D., an exceptionally intelligent man. He says:
The chief cause of the existing depression and unemployment is the excessive cost of production, and the main item in the cost of production is labour. The demand for labour, or for the products of labour, was never so large as at the present time; but through inability to pay the price the demand is not effective. To recover lost markets, and to enlarge, or even to retain existing markets, labour must be cheapened, and this can be done without reducing wages, provided that labour, working harder for present wages, will substantially increase production.
That is an easy cure for a man who does not work, not even with his brain.
The American miner, for example, receives each week a wage as high as, if not higher than, that received by the English minors. But the American miner works so much more expeditiously than the English miner, that, whereas British pit labour costs 30s. per ton, American pit labour costs only 7s. 3d. per ton.
That is not a question for the miner or the Labour party to settle. It is for E. P. Hewitt to settle with the correspondent of the London "Times," who makes a statement which is totally different. It is not conceivable that the Americans can be cut out in their own market if the cost of production is four times higher in Britain than in America, This man, Mr. Hewitt, is, I understand,
a director or a shareholder in coal companies, and, therefore, he is supposed to speak with knowledge. His knowledge is not sufficient, and it is the business of the Government to find out the truth. They can only find out the truth by setting up an inquiry. There is a stronger reason why there should be an inquiry set up. There was an article In "The Economist" last week, dealing with creditors and debtors. In that article the question was discussed of our entering into an agreement with France, Germany and America for the purpose of stabilising coal prices In the article the writer, referring to America, says:
There remains the debt of Great Britain to the United States, which we think can and should be paid. Two conditions would greatly facilitate payment, namely, that prices should remain at about their present level above pre-War, since our Budget problem with its enormous items for debts and pensions would become difficult in the extreme if we were to return to pre-War prices, and, secondly, the American prices should also settle a smaller figure for that would enable the dollar exchange to reach and be held at par. If this is not done we shall have to collect more pounds sterling to pay for our dollar debts.
I would ask the Government whether they are aware of any arrangement in the commercial world for the purpose of bringing about the stabilisation of the exchange on these terms, because if the stabilisation is to be brought about in this fashion there will have to be considerable inquiry in the conditions obtaining in the whole labour world. Otherwise you are going to depress the wages, which are all that the working man has to depend on, down below the 1914 standard, and all inquirers into the social conditions of the people during the particular period which ended when the War began are agreed that that period presented conditions to which we ought not to go back. The wages then were only just beyond a bare living level and we are asking that you should have some regard to morality in your economics. The men who sit on the benches in this House would consider that they were much worse than insulted if they were asked to live on the wages which are being earned in the mining districts in the country, or even by the highly-paid workman belonging to other industries.
If it is the intention to stabilise prices as suggested in the article to which I have referred, then I do seriously suggest
to the Government the advisability of setting up some sort of a Committee. I do not mean a Committee intended to prove that the employers in the mining industries are more heartless than the employers in any other industry. We are not making that charge against them We believe that they are largely the victims of circumstances, of prejudices to a very considerable extent which animate their own minds, as much as anybody else, so that they believe in the theories which they have advanced. We seriously suggest that some sort of inquiry should be held, that we should get to know what is the minimum standard in an industry, and an industry ought to be told that if it cannot manage to secure that at least that minimum standard shall be secured for the workers in the industry, it should go out of competition as a danger to every body in the country. I think that I have shown from the statement of Lord Aberconway that he was compelled to adopt a policy which will have the effect of reducing the comparatively highly-paid man in Yorkshire down to the lowest level of the poorest mining areas in the British coalfields. You cannot have peace on these conditions, and you are not going to have it. I am not prepared, as an individual, to advise the men belonging to our industry to work in the conditions in which they are working to-day, and what will happen, unless something is done to help in this particular business, to help the owners as much as us, is that whenever trade gives evidence of returning prosperity you will have trouble in the mining industry. We want to avoid that. I am not uttering threats, but I am appealing to the Government and the Members of this House to do something that will enable the industry to be carried on in such a fashion as will provide a sufficiency of comfort to the men engaged in it, and at the same time will help in the restoration of the country's industry.

Mr. ADAMSON: The question under consideration to-night is one which I think should have commanded the attention of all the Members of this House. I do not know any more important subject, because I am strongly of opinion that unless we can find some solution for the, present conditions of the mining industry, we are not going to see coming
to the country the prosperity which every one of us desires. I am glad that the Prime Minister has found time to come in and hear something of the case that we put up for the men engaged in the mining industry, because on his Government especially rests a considerable amount of responsibility in this connection. The general position of the mining industry is such, so far as we on these benches are concerned, that we cannot miss an opportunity of bringing it before the Government, the House and the country. We have seen recently in our newspapers the statement made repeatedly that there is again unrest in the mining districts. Those of us who know by practical experience the condition of the mining districts say frankly that there is unrest, and neither the Government nor the House nor the country can expect that there will be anything else in the mining districts than unrest so long as the present tragic condition of affairs continues. Take the position of some of cur mining districts. Wages have come down within the last eighteen months, until now they are 20 per cent. over the July, 1914, wage. This is how it works out in the various districts. In the Bristol mining district the men are earning 7s. 2d. a day. In the Durham district wages have been reduced to 8s. 7d., in Lancashire to 9s. 10d., Northumber land to 9s. 3d., North Wales 8s. 5d. Scotland 8s. 4d., and in South Wales they are reduced to 8s. 9d.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: That is the coal hewers.

Mr. ADAMSON: These are the wages paid to the face men. When you consider the position of the day-wage men, it is much worse. They have a much lower wage than the wages which I have quoted. Something has been said by a number of my colleagues about the wages still ruling in Yorkshire and in some of the Midland counties But even in these districts the wage is rapidly tumbling down to the same level as you find in the districts which I haw already mentioned. Those are the wages which are earned. When you consider that alongside that wage, a wage only 20 per cent. above that of July. 1914, and that the cost of living is still so per cent. above the figure for July, 1914, you will see that the miner's position is worse by something like 60 per cent. than it was
in July, 1914, and you have some idea of the tragic conditions existing in the mining industry and of the need there is for the Government and the country seriously to consider the position. Some of those who have spoken, who represent other industries, have asked the question, "If the wage in the mining industry is so low, how is it that we are paying so high a price still for our coal?"
I think the Secretary for Mines has already supplied the House with a number of reasons why the consumer of coal is still paying almost double the price that he paid in 1913–14. In reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for Keighley (Sir R. Clough), on 29th May last, the Secretary for Mines gave figures relating to household coal, and they run something like this for London. If you take the best quality of coal, it was costing at the pit head at the time 38s. 8d. per ton, Derby brights 26s. 6d., and kitchen nuts 21s. per ton. That was the money which was earned by the mining industry at the pit head. After the coal left the pit head we see how things went. The answer to which I have referred furnishes the explanation of the enormous price that the consumer of coal has to pay, and the explanation of how the miners and the consumers are being exploited. For the best quality of coal the railway rate between the collieries and London is 10s. 8d. per ton, for Derby bright 9s. 10d. a ton, and for kitchen nuts 8s. 9d. per ton. On that first figure I ask the Prime Minister and the Government to inquire why a considerably higher rate was required by the railways for conveying the best class of coal than for conveying the second quality or the third quality of coal.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): Have you got the pre-War figure of railway rates??

Mr. ADAMSON: Yes. The figure for railway rates in 1913 was 6s. 4d. a ton. It is a general figure. There are two other items to which I wish to call attention. I find that the distributors of coal, the middlemen, the men who, with proper organisation and co-ordination, would not be in the industry at all, take these sums: For wages of loaders and carmen, for screening, for driving money, attendance at stables, and all that sort of thing, it costs 3s. 11d. a ton for
all coal coming into London. For cartage expenses and depreciation of plant it costs 2s. 10d. a ton. Those two items together make 6s. 9d. a ton, so far as the distributors of coal are concerned. That is a figure which is very much higher than the payment to any of the miners for a ton of coal produced in any one of the mining districts of Great Britain. That money is taken out of the industry by distributors of coal. The miner's rate for getting the coal runs from slightly over 2s. a ton to 5s. a ton. I believe that the average figure is about 4s. a ton. The next item in the middlemen's charges is for clerical salaries. For these the distributors are charging 2s. 2d. a ton, and for establishment charges, telephones, rents, postages, light, and all that sort of thing, they are charging 1s. 11d. a ton. The two items together make a total of 4s. 1d. a ton, a figure as high as is, on the average, being paid to the miners for getting the coal. The figures show how the consumer is being bled.
I have told the House that the pit price of coal on 29th May was 38s. 8d. for first-class coal, 26s. 6d. for second-class coal, and 21s. for third-class coal. That means that between the pit head and the seller in London it is costing 25s. 4d. for the first quality of coal, 24s. 6d. for the second quality, and 23s. 6d. for the third quality. The consumer is being fleeced in that way, and at the same time the miner is not getting anything like the advantage he should get, from the money which is being earned in the industry. One of the tragedies of the situation is that, while the miner has "one of the best direct wages agreements" that the Prime Minister has ever seen introduced in British industry, still under that agreement the miner has no say in the fixing of the selling price—no say in the selling of the coal at all. The selling price is arranged by the owner; the manner in which the coal is to be sold is arranged by the owner, and owing to the want of organisation and co-ordination in the industry, we have both the consumer and the miner being exploited in a way for which there is no necessity. That is why we have Member after Member rising in this House to ask why there is such a difference between the price of the coal at the cellar of the consumer in London and at the pit head.
Curiously enough, within a month of the question being raised by the hon. Member for Keighley and replied to by the Secretary for Mines in the manner I have indicated, we have had a considerable fall in the selling price. At one stroke the selling price in London was reduced by 9s. a ton. My colleagues and I are wondering where that 9s. came from, because on the same day on which the Secretary for Mines gave these figures, he also said that all the profit earned by the distributors of coal was 5d. per ton. We are asking where the 9s. came from, and I will tell the House frankly my idea of where it came from. I believe it did not cost anything like the amount of money I have named for the various services outlined by the Secretary for Mines. I believe there was a much larger amount of profit being earned by the distributors of coal, on the date mentioned, than the figure which has been named. I believe they had to bear the major part of the reduction of 9s. a ton. I believe that from the day when wages fell to the deplorably low figure I have indicated, up to the 29th of May when the Secretary for Mines was answering that question, they were exploiting both the consumer and the miner at one and the same time. As I have already pointed out, with a proper system of organisation in the mining industry the thing of which I am complaining would disappear.
That applies to household coal. If one were to go into the industrial supply one would find a striking example of the manner is which the consumer is being exploited by certain parties while the miner at the same time is being exploited by certain other parties. Figures have been given here to-night of 24s. and 27s. per ton and so on, but I know one colliery where the average selling price of coal last month, taking every ton that was produced in the colliery, was 10s. 1d. per ton. That was the average figure received for small and great—averaging the dross with the larger coal—for all the coal produced at this particular collery. I know large districts in the country producing millions of tons, where the average price obtained for the coal was somewhere in the region of 16s. or 16s. 6d. per ton. It is a case of the charges to which I have referred being taken out of the industry from the time the coal
leaves the pit head until it gets into the hands of the consumer, and that is why we have this great difference.
It is time the Government and the country were taking a greater interest in this concern than they have done. Unless they are prepared to take an interest in this industry beyond what they have taken up to now there is going to be disaster. It will not only be in the mining industry. Disaster is there now. Tragedy exists there at the moment. Unless this industry in some way or another is going to be organised on a different basis which will bring justice to the men engaged in the industry, as well as to the consumer, there is going to be disaster which will extend far beyond the mining industry. As the Prime Minister well knows, British industry still rests there, notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Sir G. Renwick) about the use of oil. I suggest to the Prime Minister that there should be an inquiry into the conditions obtaining in the whole of this industry, not only in the interests of the mining community but in the interests of the nation. We cannot go on allowing a million men to be treated in the way the mining industry workers are being treated.
I know when I speak in that way, or when my colleagues speak in that way, we are taunted with threatening the Government and the country. I assure the Prime Minister and the House that nothing is further from my mind. There is nothing I would not do to-night to have this industry organised on an entirely different basis, which would do justice to the men who are going down into the bowels of the earth and bringing up that product which is essential for our future industrial well-being, and who do so under conditions which have not to be faced by any other workers in the whole range of British industry. No section of our people should be treated in the way the miners are being treated. Compare the earnings of the miners with the earnings of any other section, and you will find that they are in a far worse condition than any of the others. Disaster has come now to the mining industry, but it will come to a far greater extent if this is allowed to continue. I know of no more important problem which the Prime Minister can bend his energies to finding a solution
for than the condition of affairs in the mining industry. The right hon. Gentleman organised an inquiry at another critical time in the history of the industry, and it was the means of producing a very large amount of valuable information.
I am going to suggest that, if he will appoint a Commission of Inquiry to go into it at the present time, he will be doing an even more useful work for the industry and for the nation than he did on the occasion to which I have referred. I think it is his duty at the earliest opportunity to have this whole matter referred to a Commission of Inquiry, so that the nation may take its responsibility to that section of men and women on whom it depends so largely, and in doing that, I want to say in conclusion, the Prime Minister would only be shouldering his responsibility as the head of the Government, because I do not know any body, any part of our people, that has a greater responsibility in connection with the well-being of the working classes than the Government has. I believe that we have reached the time when Governments will require to take far more responsibility in that connection than over they have done before, when they will require to enter in and to say, even to employers in industry who may be their supporters, "This sort of thing will not do. It cannot go on." We will have to have our industries organised in a different way. We will have to have them co-ordinated on a far better plan than has ever been the case up till now. The tragedy in British industries up till now has been that they have had no organisation, no co-ordination: confusion has reigned, it has been a case of every man for himself, and as a general rule the worker has always got the worst of it. That is a condition of affairs that cannot continue in this enlightened age. The responsibility rests with the Prime Minister and with his Government to a greater extent than with anyone else, and I would suggest to him in all earnestness that at the earliest possible moment there ought to be the fullest inquiry into this question for which it is possible for him to arrange.

Mr. SPENCER: Anyone who has been long acquainted with the coal industry, especially on its financial side, cannot but be staggered with the position of the
industry at the present time. May I say, in parenthesis, that in 1914 the federated area of Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Lancashire and one or two adjacent counties had what was known as a Conciliation Board. In 1914, if my memory serves me rightly, the average price of coal was 9s. 2d. per ton. That was the return given by the colliery companies which had to present their returns as a basis for fixing the average price of the area, and that 9s. 2d. gave the worker the standard wage that he has to-day, plus 10 per cent. To-day the average price for that area is 18s. 6d. per ton, which is more than double the price in 1914, but the miner's wage is only 43 per cent. above that of 1914. Prices have doubled, but wages have only gone up 43 per cent. Let me bring to the notice of the Prime Minister one concrete case from the Bristol district, because I will confess right away that I cannot reconcile the condition that exists in that district. Let me give him first what is the average selling price of coal for that district. For the month of April the average price given by the joint auditor for that district was 20s. 7d. per ton, the average price for the whole of the 10 months being 24s. 7d. That 20s. 7d. a ton was giving these wages, namely, to the coal hewers, the highest paid men in the pit, 7s. 2.27d.; to the haulage men and fillers, 6s. 1d.; to the timberers and men of that class, 6s. 10d.; and then you come down to the lowest paid men, 5s. 3d. But the strange part about it is this, that while it was only providing such a very low wage to the men who were actually engaged, there was a loss to the owners in that month of no less than £2,800, a loss of 2s.569d. per ton on every ton of coal that was sold. Anyone who has any knowledge whatever of the mining industry over a long period, and who knows what it was in 1914, what the selling price was at that time, and what that selling price was giving to the miners, cannot reconcile the present state of affairs at all, and that concrete case alone is sufficient to justify us on this side in demanding that there should be some inquiry into the mining industry.
I know that a great deal has been said with regard to the agreement, and I want to say one or two words later on about it, but before I do so I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Mines a source of expenditure that would be worthy of inquiry by
the Government at the present time. Mr. Finlay Gibson, who may be taken as an authority on the cost of the working of a coal mine, said some time ago that so far as South Wales was concerned, the usual cost for timber and other stores over a very long period was 10d. per ton, and that just before 1914 it went up to 1s. 3d. or 1s. 4d. a ton. Hon. Members may take it that the other costs did not exceed the amount that was spent in timber for that period, so that it might be put down that the cost for insurance, depreciation, and the other costs that come under those heads did not exceed the 1s. 4d. per ton that it was costing for timber. Those two figures together give 2s. 8d. I cannot get the other costs for 1914 from Mr. Finlay Gibson, because he has not given us the advantage of having that knowledge, but he has given us the advantage of having the knowledge of the cost of timber and other stores, and I think it would be accepted by Members in this House representing the coalowners that very largely these two things equal each other. It is so in most of the returns that I have got at the present time, and if that be true, we get a figure for 1914 of approximately 2s. 8d. per ton for all costs other than wages. What are the costs to-day, not including wages at all? For Scotland they are 5s. 9d. per ton; for Northumberland 6s. 5d., Durham 6s. 7d., South Wales 7s. 10d., the Eastern area 5s. 3d., Lancashire and North Staffordshire 6s. 11d., North Wales 6s. 4d., South Staffordshire 8s. 4d. and Bristol 8s. 1d
I put this to the Prime Minister and to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote to-night. A very great deal of the money which is coming into the coal industry has to go out again for stores, and things of that character. The sum is out of all proportion to the extra money that has been coming into the industry. There is no doubt it has been swallowing a very great deal of the money that has been coming in. The wide disparity between the districts is sufficient for us, on this side of the House, to suggest that there is ground for investigation into it. For instance, in one district, it is 5s. 3d. per ton—for stores, timber, depreciation, insurance, rates and taxes, and things of that kind. There is a difference of not less than 3s. 1d. per ton between the lowest and the highest. I remember as
chairman of an urban district council, and also as a member of the council, just before 1914, going to buy coal for the gas works, and purchasing it at 6s. 10d. per ton. Here, to-day, without one penny being paid for labour, it is costing 8s. 4d. per ton to get the coal. If it is going to cost that sum I venture to state that it is not going to be possible for the miner to get a very great wage.
A great deal has been said by one or two hon. Members to-night with regard to the working of the agreement. On the whole, probably, we have very little ground for complaint, but I want to put this to the Prime Minister. One of the effects of this agreement is that the very good collieries are undoubtedly reaping a great harvest, while other collieries are finding it almost impossible to carry on. I have had to deal just recently with one colliery company which has several pits. In one pit they have lost this year no less than £14,000. In another pit they have lost no "less than £9,000; in another they have lost £6,000. Only on Monday, when I was there seeking to make some arrangement to carry on the pit, their greatest ground of complaint was that their neighbours and chief competitors were going into the market and underselling them, because they had great natural advantages. They were having to bring their prices down, and they came to us afterwards to get a reduction from the men. That is one of the inevitable effects of the agreement. Because of the great physical and great geological differences, you get one pit able to pay higher wages and to sell their coal more cheaply. The only effect of that is that, more or less, others have got to follow suit.
10.0 p.m.
In a measure, I blame the owners for not having more agreement amongst themselves with regard to the market. I do not say that they should have fleeced the British public, but both they as owners and we as workmen have a right to demand from the British public such a return for their investments and for our labour as will be equal to the general run of investments and the general standard of labour. They are not getting it. I will not quote figures; it is not fair to quote figures of one colliery company. One has to look to the result of the agreement as a whole, and to inquire what has been the general effect right over the British coalfields. I want to say, in
passing, that as far as the agreement is concerned the owners have got a fairly good thing on the standard in normal times. Bad as things have been in the mining industry, the profit of the British coal industry on every ton of coal sold is 1s. 42d. One must take into account all the losses, and they have been very serious in some of the districts. As a matter of fact, Kent has lost 2s. 7.36d. during the whole of the ten months on every ton of coal it has turned out. Of course, it is a small district, and does not affect the aggregate very greatly, but, on the whole, the owners have not got very good ground for complaint.
In normal times it would work out that their standard profit would be such as to give them more than was contemplated by Justice Sankey when he made his inquiry. He laid it down that he thought a reasonable return for the owner on the capital invested would be about 1s. 2d. per ton. For the whole of the 10 months the standard profits of the owner—I want to make it clear that he has not got this money, because there are certain costs; he has had to give it up to pay the minimum wage—but in anything like normal times this would be the standard yield, without the surplus yield at all. This is what it works out at: In Scotland, 1s. 4.28d.: Northumberland, 1s. 4d.; Durham, 1s. 5d.; South Wales, 1s. 8d.: Eastern area, 1s. 4d.; Lancashire and North Staffordshire, 1s. 7.85d.; North Wales, 1s. 9d.; South Staffordshire and Salop, 1s. 4d.; Bristol, 2s. It is a remarkable phenomenon that the area that can afford to pay the least—which is paying the least to the workmen, and can only afford to pay the least because of economic circumstances—is giving the highest return. Bristol, with 2s., is not comparable, from the geological point of view, with the Eastern area at 1s. 4d.
That is what the return would give them in something like a normal year. If I take the period of 10 months, I think I am justified in saying that that period is sufficient to guide us in arriving at that conclusion. I am not suggesting that the money has actually been paid; I know it has not; but that is the theoretical return which will accrue if this agreement lasts. It is well recognised by both sides—by the auditors for the colliery companies and by the auditors for the workmen—that in the working of this agreement the owners will re-
coup themselves as soon as there is a turn of the market. More and more of these losses—and this is the most serious thing to us in the present circumstances —that the owners have sustained will come back again to them when we begin to go over the hill. That means that the workmen will have to wait for a considerable period before they can get anything like an increase in their general condition.
Let the give one illustration to point out what I mean. In April, in the Eastern area, the owners were entitled to a profit, in round figures, of £500,000. They only got £73,000. In the working out of the agreement, however, with the wages based upon past ascertainments, as soon as ever they touch something like normality and begin to rise again, the owners will be putting money into their pockets, which they will have to pay out again at a subsequent date. That: is very serious to the miners when they get to the return, but it is very serious to the owners at the present time. Let me give an example. You get a colliery company—and you have poor ones as well as rich—composed of very honest men, willing to do what is right by their men, desirous of taking no advantage of them, willing to carry out this agreement. The moment comes, as it has done in this last six months, when prices begin to fall. They are always two months behind, that is to say, they pay June wages on the April asceertainment. The April ascertainment says, "If the proceeds of the industry during June equal what they were in April, then we will be able to pay these wages," but instead of equalling what they did in April, they fall tumbling down. Yet during the whole of the month the owner has to pay the whole of that wage. It occurs not only in one month, but in two or three months, the colliery company finds itself at the end of three months in a position not to carry on any longer, and must go to the workman and ask him to take some less wages as a temporary measure. That means that, so far as both owners and the men are concerned during this transition period from the abnormal and the extreme to the mean, the miner and the owner are bound to lose. I venture to state that the owners have lost in some cases thousands of pounds that they can never recoup because, in the return journey, the figure will never rise to the extent that it has gone down. Con-
sequently, they are bound to lose thousands of pounds.
I know that when we have asked for a subsidy on this side there have been jeers, and it has been stated, more than once, that we have no more right to a subsidy than any other industry. Well, we have; and I will give two reasons why. In the first place, when the market was most favourable to the miner, when war broke out, the first restriction put upon any trade was put upon mining, and in every other trade, both master and man, were allowed to make huge fortunes out of the public before any restriction was put on prices and sale. Now, with the mining industry, we got the coal restriction prices very early, and at that time, when it was a great advantage for us to follow the economic law and when we could have enriched ourselves, at that moment the Government, justly and rightly said that in the interests of the nation they must debar us from taking full advantage of the law of supply and demand. Very well. If it was right to do that at a moment when it would have been advantageous to miner and owner to get what they liked, I venture to state that when the time arrived when it was essential in the interests of the nation that coal prices should come down so that all other industries could, more or less, begin to pick themselves up, the nation was not justified in demanding that one industry, both workmen and employers, should make a great sacrifice in the interests of the State without the State doing something for them. There is no other trade, unless it is transport, that was in precisely the same position. Iron does not enter into every commodity made, nor sugar, nor wood, nor leather, but coal does, and it was essential that coal prices should come down in order that every other industry, more or less, could get going. Coal prices have come down, but I venture to ask a question, very respectfully, of the President of the Board of Trade, who made such an admirable speech the other evening when he said that miners have set an example worthy of emulation. No one has emulated us. There would be no ground of complaint for the miners if there had been that reduction in the price of commodities which he has to purchase, that there has been in his wages. It is because wages have tumbled down and the
cost of living has been coming a long way behind that this complaint is made to-night.
I know it is said that two things would improve the miner: firstly, a revival of trade. We would all be very glad to have a revival of trade, but it does not naturally follow that revival of trade will improve the position of some of the miners. You have men actually working six days a week to-day and having to go to the guardians to help them keep their families when they have been six days at work. Consequently, as far as a revival of trade is concerned in the working day that is not going to help him a very great deal. It is said that the railway rates will help if they are reduced. There, again, I am not quite so certain. It can only help in one way. It will not help the miner so far as giving him any of the money is concerned. Let me assume that there is an average reduction of 2s. a ton on all freightage next week. The miner would not get any of that 2s., but he might hope to see that 2s. reflected in the reduction of the cost of commodities he has to buy in the market. It is just possible he might get something in that way. I am convinced that so far as railway rates are concerned he could not expect anything from that 2s., and I will tell the Committee why. I do think we are being foolish, both masters and men, with regard to our ascertainments. We have had monthly ascertainments, and what has been the result? We have had every merchant at the month's end refusing to buy until he got to know what the ascertainment was, and as soon as he did that he came to the owner and said he was not going to buy unless he was given the benefit of that ascertainment. What would happen if 2s. came off railway rates? The merchant would come the next month and say that he wanted it. In the present relation, with no cooperation between them, and the unwise competition that exists, they would give it. One would give it, and then the others would follow. That is one of the evils owners and men alike have had to contend with during the last six months. I say, therefore, that this reduction of railway rates in my opinion would not help the miner a very great deal, except that it might gradually be seen in the reduction of the cost of living.
I believe there is room here for an inquiry as to the extent of production at the
present time, and as to the price at which coal has been sold to the consumer. I could give evidence here of a progressive decline from 28s. in July last to 18s. now, while it is only just now that the merchants of London and other places have reduced coal to the British consumer. I am not in a position definitely to vouch for it, but I should say, in view of the progressive decline of prices, that the London merchants have profiteered more in coal during the first four months than any merchants in any part of the world.

Mr. SWAN: I do not intend to go into elaborate details, but I would say that ever since decontrol the miners of the country have been getting into a most tragic plight. Not only has the position of things acted as a blight on the mining community, but it has re-acted on every other industry in the country. We were told that under decontrol the nation would prosper. Where is the prosperity? In the mining districts of my county, Durham —and elsewhere—the state of remuneration is such that it is insufficient to enable the miner to provide for himself and his family. Throughout the county these people are in a state of hunger, resembling the dark times of the late "seventies." The children are in a state of emaciation. This state of affairs demands that there should be a careful and deliberate inquiry into the reasons of this, not only in Durham, but in the whole of the mining community of the kingdom. We should inquire into the factors of production, and why men who are working and producing such quantities of coal and wealth are in such a miserable state. The contrast between 1914 and the present time is great. We all know that the cost of living, according to the Board of Trade figures, is 80 per cent. above normal, yet the miners to-day have in wages only 20 per cent. in excess of what they were in 1914. There is substantial ground for inquiry, which should consider a decent wage, the general needs of life, whether or not the present position is due to the enormous profits that are being made, or whether it is due to the high cost of goods, stores, railway rates, and so on. We also ought to know from such an inquiry how far the effect of reparation goes in determining or affecting the wages of the miners and the profits of the coalowners. We ought also to know how far reparation has gone to curtail the prices given for coal in Britain and other parts of the
world. During the last three months of the period of control we received for one month as much as we are receiving to-day for three months, taking, say, the first quarter of this year.
We were told that what was required was more production. The Prime Minister urged us to go into our separate areas and get on with the matter, and then things would improve. He spurred us on to produce more and supply the goods, and promised that if our men supplied the goods then the benefits would be forthcoming. Our men have spurred themselves up, and they are producing more to-day per man than ever they have done before. What do we find? Wages to-day are less, compared with the exchange value, than we have ever known them before. What we were promised for this spurring up was that we should get such amenities and there would be such a good feeling as had never existed before. We have now supplied the goods. In my own division, where formerly we had ten mines working, we have only got four now. In the event of such an inquiry as we have asked for being granted, I hope we shall get to know the reason why these mines are stopped to-day and what has led to them being closed down. There has never been any consideration by the owners collectively, in fixing the selling price, for the men engaged in the mine so as to provide them with a sufficient wage to maintain their families. That fact has never been taken into consideration at all since the period of decontrol. We submit that every industry ought to guarantee those who are engaged in it a reasonable standard of living in order that they may be able to live as decent citizens. We find that not only as de-control served the miners and re-acted upon every other industry, but even our local authorities are feeling the effects of this policy. The wages paid in many cases are not sufficient to keep the miners from applying to the Poor Law and, as the Poor Law authorities are almost in a state of bankruptcy, unfortunately, they cannot assist the miners with their low wages.
As far as employment is concerned, what has happened as a result of decontrol? Are more men employed? In the County of Durham, according to the Secretary for Mines, there are from
16,000 to 20,000 out of work. As a matter of fact, we calculate there are 120,000 miners in that county who are willing to work who cannot obtain employment in the mines. Then with regard to the relationships between miners and their employers. We are told that good fellowship is all that is needed. What do we find in that connection? Since decontrol, men are refused work, and why? Because they are earmarked as Bolshevists and agitators, and they have been victimised for 18 months and refused all chance of employment. I hope we shall get an inquiry into the reason why sober, intelligent citizens cannot have an opportunity of again working in mines in which they have worked the greater part of their lives. Further attacks have been made on the miners, but I am not going to enter into the details of the vindictiveness which has been dis played, and which has been reflected upon my colleagues in a Committee upstairs. If we cannot, as a result of an inquiry such as we ask for, produce a better state of things under decontrol— a state which will at least give the men more employment and make the industry run better than it does to-day—then I hope the Prime Minister and the Cabinet will not hesitate in repeating the action they took during the period of the War, and will re-instate control in the interests of the miners and of the nation. In those days every man who could be got to produce coal found employment, and the price of coal was fixed at a figure which guaranteed the men a decent wage.

Major CLIFTON BROWN: Would you fix the price for Europe?

Mr. SWAN: Yes, if there is a demand for that to be done. It would be for the League of Nations to see that an economic price was fixed which would guarantee to the workers such a wage as would enable all engaged in the industry to have a decent life. We were told that the shorter hours had militated against good wages and handicapped this country in the markets of the world. The hon. Member for Cardiff (Mr. Gould) suggested that in Wales it had reduced the output and added to the cost. We were informed later that, instead of the shorter hours in Wales curtailing output, the men produced more under the 7 hours than under the 8 hours, and we know from
further inquiries that, wherever miners, have worked shorter hours, the output has not diminished but had been increased. Their efficiency has been increased, and the accidents, where the hours were shorter, were less likewise. I hope, therefore, that we shall have a careful inquiry into the reason of the low wages and the reason for so many of our people being out of work; and that;, if a better state of affairs cannot be brought about under private ownership, there will be no hesitation in re-establishing control.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There are one or two points to which I should like to refer before I deal with the question of an inquiry into wages, which has been raised by most of the speakers. I forgot, when speaking before on the question of safety, to give some figures which I said I would give in reply to what the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Robertson) said, comparing our death-rate with that of other countries. Ours, per 1,000, in 1920, was 0.88, which was the lowest of any country of which I have been able to get figures for comparison, except Queensland, which was 0.80. In the "United States it was 2–92. In South Africa it varied from 2.37 to 3.85, and in Canada from 2.30 to 2.67. In India it was 098, in New South Wales 1.00, and in Belgium 1.13. I do not want to boast about it, but, at any rate, there is some satisfaction in feeling that we are rather ahead of other countries.

Mr. ROBERTSON: May I point out again to the right hon. Gentleman that it was not on the question of comparison of different countries that we differed with regard to figures? Where we differed was in quotations from the Mines Inspectors' reports. I gave the figures from the report fox 1920, and those were the figures to which the right hon. Gentleman was going to refer.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was not attempting to answer that, because I have not the figures. I said that I would get them later on if I could. I was merely putting in something which I omitted to say, and which I said I would say, about the comparison between this country and others. There is another small point that was raised by the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. G. Barker) The hon Member accused us of having economised on our health and safety branch by abolishing the office of Director of Health and
Safety It is quite true that that office nominally was abolished, but the work is carried on by an officer under another title, who was taken from another branch of the Department, and, therefore, the Health and Safety section of my Department was in no way weakened. The other accusation that the hon. Member brought against me was with regard to the appointment of a divisional inspector for South Wales. He complained that someone who was not Welsh had been introduced—and here I speak with some alarm, because the right hon Gentleman the Prime Minister is behind me. The hon. Member suggested that I had brought in someone else from outside as a divisional inspector, and a second person, not conversant with Welsh, beside. The fact is that the gentleman who has been appointed divisional inspector has been for ton years senior inspector in that district, so he was not brought in from outside at all. He does understand Welsh, though I believe he cannot speak it. After all the hon. Member himself has attained a position of considerable eminence and importance in the South Welsh mining field without, I think, having a much greater knowledge of the language. There are in that district other inspectors who are good speakers of Welsh and I have been obliged to do what I think is always necessary—to promote the best man I can. Under the Coal Mines Act, Section 97, it is required of me that, in the appointment of inspectors of mines in Wales and Monmouth, with candidates equally qualified, persons having a knowledge of the Welsh language shall be preferred. That is what I have done. Amongst the persons equally qualified there was no one else who even knew Welsh. I should like the hon. Member to see what the effect would be if what he seems to desire were carried out and South Wales were a sort of isolated district in which promotion could only circulate without going outside. It would mean that any able South Welshman who was fit for promotion to some other district would not be able to be promoted. I could not spare him from South Wales because there are not a great number of people who understand that language,. I think it is to the advantage of each district that inspectors familiar with problems in other districts should come in, and the variety of experience which they have gained in other districts
will be very advantageous to any new district they come into. I am sure ex change between one district and another is desirable, and it would be most undesirable to confine all the Welsh-speaking people to the districts in South Wales.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the main point of our criticism that he has weakened the inspectorate by very many thousands of pounds this year com pared with last year. He still has £80,000 to his credit and has not attempted to strengthen the inspectorate all over the Kingdom with regard to the key industry of Great Britain. He has only spent £170,000 out of £250.000 he could have spent, and he has not attempted to strengthen the inspectorate.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is the first time the point has been raised.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I attempted to get in to put this point. The inspectorate only costs £39,000. You still have £80,000 to your credit, but you have done nothing at all except to decrease the expenditure on the inspectorate.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The inspectorate has not suffered, but I reduced my expenditure in obedience to the call of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister, and Sir Eric Geddes' Committee. I had hoped, whatever my other faults may be, that I should have got credit for economy. The important question that has been raised in this recent Debate has been the question of wages. There is no one here who is not sick at heart to think of the sufferings which some of those engaged in the mining industry are undergoing. I do not say all of them, but there are a large number who undoubtedly, owing to short work more than anything else—

HON. MEMBERS: And wages.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Short time is the most serious factor.

Mr. SUTTON: If they were working full time they would be starving.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is chiefly for that reason that the wages are totally inadequate. It has been said to-night that some good could be achieved by an inquiry, but it has not been at all clear
what the nature of the inquiry is to be. Nobody has actually suggested the points on which the inquiry is to be held.

Mr. CAIRNS: I raised that question, and I suggested it should be an inquiry into the whole coal-mining industry.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is very easy to say that, and if I thought that an inquiry would do any good, there is no limit to which I would not go in that direction. If by taking thought I could add a cubit to my stature, I should have done it long ago.

Mr. CAIRNS: You have taken a cubit out of the men's wages.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If by holding an inquiry I thought that we could improve the condition of the industry, there is no length to which I would not go in holding an inquiry. Really, the point which is behind the mind of everybody, except the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. Penry Williams), is to get some subsidy out of the Government. The views of the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough were more remarkable than any of the others. The hon. Member for the Broxtowe Division (Mr. Spencer), in a most excellent speech, very moderate and very reasonable, made it quite clear that, in his mind, nothing at the moment, with the trade as it is, could benefit the condition of the poorly-paid miners, except a subsidy. That means getting from the rest of the community, many of whom are receiving low wages, many of whom are unemployed, a levy, in order to improve the conditions of the miners. I do not think it will be the slightest use asking this House to agree to any subsidy of that kind for the mining industry. Although I hope that I shall not be accused of being unsympathetic, I should he misleading hon. Members if I held out any hopes of any such subsidy being available. The real hope of any substantial improvement is in an improvement in trade. All the troubles that have been referred to by hon. Members are due to the want of demand for coal. It is said that coalowners compete with one another, but that would not happen if there were a greater demand. There is no trouble with output. If the coal could be sold, the miners would work as hard as they could to produce a satisfactory output. The whole difficulty is
that at the present time there is not sufficient demand. I am glad to say that in the compendium which has just come out there is a more hopeful view about the export trade. In quantity the export is very satisfactory, during the last five months, from January to May. In January, the export amounted to 5,471,000 tons; in March, 6,844,000.

Mr. HARTSHORN: What was the revenue?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say. The price in January was 23s. 10d. a ton, and in February 22s. 3d. Since then it has risen slightly to 22s. 8d. and 22s. 10d. It is a small comfort, but ii is some satisfaction to think that the export trade has been recovering what was lost during the stoppage last year. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The stoppage last year lost us an enormous amount. It is satisfactory that the quantity at any rate of our export trade is very nearly equal to the pre-War quantity, and if we only get a continuous rise in prices more rapid than that which is going on now it will cause a great improvement in the industry. The trouble is the whole industry. Most of the hon. Members spoke in favour of having a higher price for the coal. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough took a different view. He wanted an inquiry in order that coal might be cheaper.

Mr. P. WILLIAMS: What I said was that the price of coal is double to the industrial consumer. The miners say it is not going on wages and the owners say it is not going on profits, and I want to know where it is going.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am within the recollection of the House. He said what was required is cheaper fuel, which was necessary for his own particular industry.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Certainly.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I consider that the mining industry has made far greater sacrifices towards reaching an economic level than any other findustry in this country. If the hon. Gentleman says that miners are to get lower wages and owners are to go without the profits in order that his industry may start with very much higher wages and decent profit to the owners, he is not contributing his share and his industry is not contributing its share towards bringing things back to
an economic level. Why should my hon. Friend ask the mining industry to make further sacrifices for the benefit of other industries?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The other industries have stopped.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not agree that other industries have suffered so much loss in wages. The miners have lost on an average something like 10s. a shift, the railwaymen 21s. a week, the engineers from 14s. to 16s., shipbuilding about 30s., dockers 4s. a day. None of these other industries have made anything like the same sacrifices.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The industries are not working. They cannot get going because of the cost of coal.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Let them follow the example of the miners.

Mr. SUTTON: Do you want those men to starve like the miners? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Order yourself! If you bounders were starving like the miners—

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The figures which I have given are accurate. Members can draw their own inference. What I am complaining of is that people in other industries, instead of meeting the difficulty in the way in which the mining industry have, are still asking the mining industry to bear further charges. I wish to say a word or two about household coal. It seems to me that there is a good deal of suspicion about all that has been said as to some one or other making money. Suspicion has always been a curse in a good many industries, and I do not think the coal industry is exempt. Suspicion is carried to an extravagant degree when it is supposed that the coalowners are glad to make less profits, or to go without profits, or even to make a loss, and that the coal merchants are delighted to lose on all their summer prices in order to bring down wages. I have never heard of such extravagant suspicion as is to be found in those who can see such absurd conduct either among the coal merchants or the coalowners. I hold no brief for the one or the other. I am sorry there have not been more coalowners here to-night to state their point of view.

Mr. SPENCER: The right hon. Gentleman is not putting the case fairly.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I had a letter from Mr. H. C. Rickett, the Chairman of the Coal Merchants' Federation, which I will read. He says:
From questions which I see you are being frequently asked in the House of Commons, it would appear that there it some misunderstanding with regard to the recent reduction of 9s. per ton in the selling price of coal to the public in central London, as I see it has been suggested that, if it were possible for the merchants to reduce prices by this amount, they must have been exploiting the public before the reduction was made.
When we gave you figures showing that, as at 25th May, the merchant was making a net profit of fivepence per ton, it was made clear that this figure was arrived at on the basis that the merchant was handling a proportionate part of his normal annual tonnage. The fact is, of course, that in May all merchants were making a considerable loss, because they were doing no business at all, and the miners were suffering in their wages for the same reason.
Some of us engaged in the distributing trade determined to make a hold attempt to induce the public to buy, and so lessen our loss. The action that we took has had the desired effect. The public are placing their orders, the collieries, generally speaking, have met the position very fairly, and whilst merchants cannot be making money, as they very rarely do in the summer months, we have lessened the loss which would have continued had we had no tonnage, and our standing expenses, establishments, staff, men, horses, etc., still going on.
As you know, there is no committee or body which controls the selling price of coal to the public in London, it being quite open for anybody to sell at any price they think fit, but Mr. Moger and I would be prepared to come and see those Members of Parliament who are seeking information on this matter, with you, should you consider such a course of action would serve any useful purpose.
I can very easily arrange for anyone who wishes to have information direct from the coal merchants to meet these gentlemen, and then I hope the matter will be cleared up in their minds. As to the questions raised by a number of hon. Members, the only thing that is going to bring about any marked improvement in the position of the coal industry is a revival in trade, but there are minor points which I think may make some difference. There is the question of railway rates which has been raised by the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould). It is in the power of the coalowners to make a demand before the Rates Tribunal for
a lower rate. I do not quite know why they have not done so. As a matter of fact, I have an Advisory Committee in the Mines Department to which I have already decided to refer that question so that they may give the best advice in their power to the coal industry. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough raised an interesting question as to the difficulty of ascertaining why it is that everybody is doing so badly. There are the quarterly figures which are published —I am sorry to say they are very late and I have had difficulty in getting them from the collieries—but they give the cost of production and the items which go to make it up. It is quite clear how these costs are made up. It must also be quite clear that when they are working only part time the cost per ton is very much higher than if they are working full time. If we had a normal demand in the home industries they would be working full time, and perhaps 20,000,000 tons more would be sold in the steel and iron trades in this country alone. In South Wales, in one month, when they were working full time, the cost per ton went down 1s. 3d. One of the reasons why costs other than wages are so high is that they are working on short time, and the overhead charges bear an undue proportion to the rest of the accounts of the industry. As far as the position of the workers goes, if they are dissatisfied with the distribution under the agreement it is open to their accountants to look up the figures in any colliery or in the whole district, and to check them, and they have got their own remedy.
I am quite prepared to submit, not the question of whether there is to be a subsidy or not, not the whole question of the organisation of the industry, but questions as to whether there is any possibility of economising in the distribution costs, in the railway freights, or in any of the various items which go to make the price to the consumer—I am prepared to submit those to the consideration of the Advisory Committee of my Department The Committee is com-
posed not only of coalowners and miners but of employers in other industries, and workers in other industries, mining engineers' representatives, agents' representatives, exporters, factors, merchants' representives, scientific gentlemen, and co-operative representatives. It is altogether a very able Committee, quite capable of giving an opinion from the point of view of many other industries besides the coal industry. What I certainly will do is, at their next meeting, which will be in about a fortnight or three weeks, to submit some of these questions to them and ask their advice.

Mr. SWAN: Will the miners' wages be in that category?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We cannot interfere with them, because they are subject to the agreement which has been signed by both parties.

Mr. SUTTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the managerial expenses at collieries? Take Lancashire, for instance. We have there an item which is called "Costs. plus wages," amounting to nearly £750,000. That has to be earned by the collier at the coal face, for which he gets no credit, and that is where inquiries ought to be made. Managers and directors have not had: their salaries reduced in many instances as miners have, and it the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiries into that matter, I think it might help a little bit.

Question, "That '£95,284' stand part of the Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Resolution agreed to.

The remaining Order' were read, and postponed.

ADJOURMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Four-Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.